[Matthew F. Barnes]
> The ability to remotely terminate a for-loop also struck me as
somewhat
> interesting:
>
> def estimate(item, iterable):
> . . .
> if good_enough:
> iterable.stop()
> return result
>
> for x in iterable:
> . . .
>
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 19:58 -0500, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Any real-world use cases or compelling contrived examples?
>
> ISTM, that the code calling it.stop() would already be in position to
> break-out of the iteration directly or set a termination flag. Instead
> of:
>
> it = itertools
On 12/7/05, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any generator specific needs that are not met by the PEP 342
> implementation? Given a choice between throw(), close(), and send(), I
> would have thought that all the bases have been covered.
Agreed. When the new functionality
[Matthew F. Barnes]
> > > Perhaps it would be a useful addition to the itertools
> > > module then?
> > >
> > > itertools.interruptable(iterable)
[Raymond Hettinger]
> > Any real-world use cases or compelling contrived examples?
[Simon Wittber]
> I use something like this in the nanothr
On 12/7/05, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Matthew F. Barnes] Perhaps it would be a useful addition to the
> itertools
> > module then?
> >
> > itertools.interruptable(iterable)
>
> Any real-world use cases or compelling contrived examples?
I use something like this in th
[Matthew F. Barnes] Perhaps it would be a useful addition to the
itertools
> module then?
>
> itertools.interruptable(iterable)
Any real-world use cases or compelling contrived examples?
ISTM, that the code calling it.stop() would already be in position to
break-out of the iteration dir
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 14:36 -0500, Edward Loper wrote:
> There's no need to change the iterator protocol for your example use
> case; you could just define a simple iterator-wrapper:
Good point. Perhaps it would be a useful addition to the itertools
module then?
itertools.interruptable(
> I had an idea this morning for a simple extension to Python's iterator
> protocol that would allow the user to force an iterator to raise
> StopIteration on the next call to next(). My thought was to add a new
> method to iterators called stop().
There's no need to change the iterator protocol
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 10:57 -0800, Alex Martelli wrote:
> PEP 342, already accepted and found at
> http://python.org/peps/pep-0342.html , covers related functionality
> (as well as many other points).
Thanks Alex, I'll take another look at that PEP. The first time I tried
to read it my brain star
On 11/30/05, Matthew F. Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I'm curious if anything like this has been proposed in the past. If so,
> could someone kindly point me to any relevant mailing list threads?
PEP 342, already accepted and found at
http://python.org/peps/pep-0342.html , covers rel
Hello,
I've not had much luck in searching for a discussion on this in the
Python-Dev archives, so bear with me.
I had an idea this morning for a simple extension to Python's iterator
protocol that would allow the user to force an iterator to raise
StopIteration on the next call to next(). My th
11 matches
Mail list logo
