gl...@divmod.com schrieb:
On 01:00 am, greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
We already have yield expressions and they mean something else...
They don't have a * in them, though, and I don't
think the existing meaning of yield as an expression
would carry over into the
gl...@divmod.com wrote:
has anyone considered the syntax 'yield from iterable'?
That would be reasonable, too. I don't really have any
strong feelings about the syntax at the moment, except
that I'd like it to be something reasonably short so
that embedding it in an expression is a feasible
Guido van Rossum wrote:
It would be way too confusing to have a different form of call with
totally different semantics that nevertheless used the same
*terminology* as is used for regular calls.
I expect you're right, so I won't argue for calling
it call any more.
I'd still like to find a
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
def f():
v = yield *g()
print v
def g():
yield 42
return spam
Function g violates the current limitation that generators can't
return with a value. So can g only be used using yield * then, or
We already have yield expressions and they mean something else...
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
It would be way too confusing to have a different form of call with
totally different semantics that nevertheless used the
Willem Broekema wrote:
Function g violates the current limitation that generators can't
return with a value. So can g only be used using yield * then, or
would that limitation be removed?
The limitation would be removed, in the interests
of making it easier to use generators as coroutines.
Time to move to this to python-ideas, folks.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Calvin Spealman ironfro...@gmail.com wrote:
All of this debate is moot without the foundation of a common library
on which we would be building these coroutines. Any proposal of a
specific coroutine syntax is
Guido van Rossum wrote:
We already have yield expressions and they mean something else...
They don't have a * in them, though, and I don't
think the existing meaning of yield as an expression
would carry over into the yield * variant, so there
shouldn't be any conflict.
But if you think there
On 01:00 am, greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
We already have yield expressions and they mean something else...
They don't have a * in them, though, and I don't
think the existing meaning of yield as an expression
would carry over into the yield * variant, so there
