On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 08:00:46PM +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
> Since I do not have a machine with so much memory: Does one
> of the buildbots allow to run tests for this feature, or
> do I have to wait for the snakebite farm?
Will you be at PyCon? The wait might not be as bad as you think ;
At 10:21 AM 3/22/2009 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
P.J. Eby wrote:
My concern is that allowing 'return value' in generators is going
to be confusing, since it effectively causes the return value to
"disappear" if you're not using it in this special way with some
framework that takes advantage.
2009/3/21 Greg Ewing :
> P.J. Eby wrote:
>
>> My concern is that allowing 'return value' in generators is going to be
>> confusing, since it effectively causes the return value to "disappear" if
>> you're not using it in this special way with some framework that takes
>> advantage.
>
> But part of
P.J. Eby wrote:
My concern is that allowing 'return value' in generators is going to be
confusing, since it effectively causes the return value to "disappear"
if you're not using it in this special way with some framework that
takes advantage.
But part of all this is that you *don't* need a
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Do we really want to add a syntactic feature which has such a complicated
expansion? I fear it will make code using "yield from" much more difficult to
understand and audit.
As I've said before, I don't think the feature itself is
difficult to understand. You're not meant
At 04:45 PM 3/21/2009 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I really like the PEP - it's a solid extension of the ideas introduced
by PEP 342.
(Replying to you since I haven't seen any other thread on this)
My concern is that allowing 'return value' in generators is going to
be confusing, since it effec
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> Whether or not different people will find code using "yield from"
> difficult to understand or not will have more to do with their grasp of
> the concepts of cooperative multitasking in general more so than the
> underlying trickery involved in allowing truly n
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>> And that it formally expanded to:
>>
>> conditionals>
>
> Do we really want to add a syntactic feature which has such a complicated
> expansion? I fear it will make code using "yield from" much more difficult to
> understand and audit.
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> And that it formally expanded to:
>
>
Do we really want to add a syntactic feature which has such a complicated
expansion? I fear it will make code using "yield from" much more difficult to
understand and audit.
James Pye wrote:
> The identification of this issue came from an *experiment* attempting to
> create a *single* "daemonized()" CM that would execute the
> with-statement's block in a new child process and, of course, not
> execute it in the parent. At first, I ran into the RuntimeError in the
> par
10 matches
Mail list logo
