Stephen J. Turnbull a écrit :
Firephoenix writes:
> I'm a little confused by the recent changes to the generator system...
Welcome to the club. It's not easy even for the gurus. See the PEP
380 ("yield from") discussions (mostly on Python-Ideas).
> But I noticed then that all the other methods of the generator had
> stayed the same (send, throw, close...), which gives really weird (imo)
> codes :
>
> next(it)
> it.send(35)
> it.throw(Exception())
> next(it)
> ....
>
> Browsing the web, I've found people troubled by that asymmetry, but no
> remarks on its causes nor its future...
Well, this kind of discussion generally belongs on c.l.py, but as far
as I know, .next() is still present for generators but it's spelled
.send(None). See PEP 342. It seems to me that the rationale for
respelling .next() as .__next__() given in PEP 3114 doesn't apply to
.send() and .throw(), since there is no syntax which invokes those
methods magically.
Also note that since next() takes no argument, it presumes no
knowledge of the implementation of the iterator. So specification as
a function called "on" the iterator seems natural to me. But .send()
and .throw() are only useful if you know the semantics of their
arguments, ie, the implementation of the generator. Thus using method
syntax for them seems more natural to me.
If you have some concrete suggestions you want to follow up to
Python-Dev with, two remarks:
The code presented above is weird because that code is weird, not
because the generator methods are messed up. Why would you ever write
that code? You need a plausible use case, one where a generator is
the natural way to write the code, but it's not explicitly iterative.
Second, the whole trend is the other direction, fitting generators
naturally into Python syntax without using explicit invocation of
methods. Again, PEP 380 is an example (though rather specialized).
As is the expression form of yield (half-successful in that no
recv() syntax or builtin is needed, although .send() seems to be). So
the use case requested above will need to be compelling.
Whoups, now that you mention it, I discover other mailing-lists seemed
more suitable for this subject... sorry
Actually I ran over an example like the following, in the case of a
"reversed generator" that has to be activated by a first call to "next",
before we're able to send data to the yield expression it has encountered.
But as you mention, send(None) would work as well, and this kind of
"setup operation" had better be hidden in a function decorator or
something like that.
> next(it) # init phase
> it.send(35)
> it.send(36)
Regards,
pascal Chambon
_______________________________________________
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
