On 6 November 2016 at 17:44, Ram Rachum <r...@rachum.com> wrote: > I understand your point of view. I see that Python does allow you to not > call `__exit__` if you don't want to, so I wish it'll have the same approach > to not calling `generator.close()` if you don't want to. (This is what it's > really about, not `finally`.)
No, as that's like asking that Python not call close() on files automatically, or not wait for non-daemon threads to terminate when it's shutting down. When Python is discarding a frame that was previously suspended and never finished normally, it throws an exception into it in order to give it a chance to release any resources it might be holding. If you want to deliberately make it leak resources in such cases instead of cleaning them up, you're going to have to leak them deliberately and explicitly, just as you would in normal synchronous code. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
