On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 23:55, Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 31.05.22 16:21, Chris Angelico пише: > > On Tue, 31 May 2022 at 23:00, Aaron L via Python-ideas > > <python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > >> After getting used to writing async functions, I’ve been wanting use a > >> similar syntax to declare generator functions. > > > > What's the advantage? You can just use normal function syntax to > > define them, and it works correctly. Do you need the ability to > > declare that it's a generator even without any yields in it? > > The advantage is that you cannot accidentally turn a function into a > generator by adding "yield". If the result of the call is ignored (it is > expected to be None), this bug can live a long time. It is a common > issue: test containing yield always passes. Since 3.11 the unittest > module emits a warning if a test method returns not None, but it will > not solve all problems: the test can call helpers, and if they are > generators, the call is virtually no-op. This error can also occur in > non-test code.
That might be nice, but without a massive backward compatibility break (or another keyword for non-generator functions), it can't happen. Is there any advantage to being able to declare that it must be a generator (as opposed to simply returning a generator object)? Maybe I just don't work on the right sorts of codebases. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/XBY4IPN6FDJCCBDZWIRQLTISEICD6PA2/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
