> A minor sticking point - I don't like that the generator has to re-raise any > ``StopIteration`` passed in. Would it be possible to have the semantics be: > > If a generator is resumed with ``StopIteration``, the exception is raised > at the resumption point (and stored for later use). When the generator > exits normally (i.e. ``return`` or falls off the end) it re-raises the > stored exception (if any) or raises a new ``StopIteration`` exception. I don't like the idea of storing exceptions. Let's just say that we don't care whether it re-raises the very same StopIteration exception that was passed in or a different one -- it's all moot anyway because the StopIteration instance is thrown away by the caller of next(). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4