Guido van Rossum wrote: [SNIP] >>It's interesting that there is such similarity between 'for' and >>'block'. Why is it that block does not call iter() on EXPR1? I >>guess that fact that 'break' and 'return' work differently is a more >>significant difference. > > > Well, perhaps block *should* call iter()? I'd like to hear votes about > this. In most cases that would make a block-statement entirely > equivalent to a for-loop, the exception being only when there's an > exception or when breaking out of an iterator with resource > management. > I am -0 on changing it to call iter(). I do like the distinction from a 'for' loop and leaving an emphasis for template blocks (or blocks, or whatever hip term you crazy kids are using for these things at the moment) to use generators. As I said before, I am viewing these blocks as a construct for external control of generators, not as a snazzy 'for' loop. -Brett
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