>>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes: GvR> On c.l.py, there's a small discussion going on the necessity of GvR> a future statement to enable the yield keyword. The general GvR> opinion seems to be that the future statement is redundant, GvR> since previous uses of yield will generally result in a syntax GvR> error -- and there aren't very many uses of yield in the first GvR> place. The other uses of future (nested scopes and division) GvR> were needed because these features cause *silent* failure -- GvR> but with yield, you'd have to work really really hard to cause GvR> a silent failure. I does seem almost comical that the introduction of yield as a keyword requires a future statement but the descr branch changes do not. Talk about silent failures -- dir() no longers work, method resolution for multiple inheritance changes, changes to the str names of types. Why don't these require a future statement? Jeremy
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