Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It could perhaps be done by enhancing the part of the >>> 'for' loop that gets executed upon normal termination >>> of the iterator. >>> >>> for x in my_iter: >>> do_something_with(x) >>> else v: >>> handle_return_value(v) >> I think something like that would actually make the PEP much stronger on >> this front - it would promote the idea of a "final value" for iterators >> as a more fundamental concept that can be worked with in a non-generator >> context. > > Hold it right there. Or maybe I should say "in your dreams." Please > don't stretch the scope of the PEP. It's not going to help your cause.
Yes, I now agree your suggestion of comparing and contrasting with PJE's simple trampoline example is a much better angle of attack. Although the PEP may still want to mention how one would write *tests* for these things. Will the test drivers themselves need to be generators participating in some kind of trampoline setup? Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
