RetroSearch Browse

Fri May 6 19:45:28 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053464.html

[Steven Bethard]
> So, just to make sure, if we had another PEP that contained from PEP 340[1]:
>  * Specification: the __next__() Method
>  * Specification: the next() Built-in Function
>  * Specification: a Change to the 'for' Loop
>  * Specification: the Extended 'continue' Statement
>  * the yield-expression part of Specification: Generator Exit Handling
> would that cover all the pieces you're concerned about?
> 
> I'd be willing to break these off into a separate PEP if people think
> it's a good idea.  I've seen very few complaints about any of these
> pieces of the proposal.  If possible, I'd like to see these things
> approved now, so that the discussion could focus more directly on the
> block-statement issues.

I don't think it's necessary to separate this out into a separate PEP;
that just seems busy-work. I agree these parts are orthogonal and
uncontroversial; a counter-PEP can suffice by stating that it's not
countering those items nor repeating them.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053464.html below:

[Python-Dev] Breaking off Enhanced Iterators PEP from PEP 340