Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> 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().
OK - so what is the point of the sentence::
The generator should re-raise this exception; it should not yield
another value.
when discussing StopIteration?
Tim Delaney
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