On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:40:06AM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On c.l.py, there's a small discussion going on the necessity of a > future statement to enable the yield keyword. The general opinion > seems to be that the future statement is redundant, since previous > uses of yield will generally result in a syntax error -- and there > aren't very many uses of yield in the first place. The other uses of > future (nested scopes and division) were needed because these features > cause *silent* failure -- but with yield, you'd have to work really > really hard to cause a silent failure. I'm still against -- sorry! But it isn't just about silently breaking code, it's also about upgrade paths. I've said this before, but I don't feel comfortable upgrading our system-wide Python version, which thousands of users might use, without there being a clear warning that things will break. The user might not even notice that Python was upgraded, and not understand why the use of 'yield' as an identifier suddenly causes a syntax error. With a release where the use of yield generates a warning, that's their own fault. (And yes, CGI scripts dump their warnings in the Apache errorlog, but we have our own way of dealing with that :) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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