RetroSearch Browse

Sat May 7 00:24:13 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053485.html

At 01:18 PM 5/6/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>There's one alternative possible (still orthogonal to PEP 340):
>instead of __next__(), we could add an optional argument to the next()
>method, and forget about the next() built-in. This is more compatible
>(if less future-proof). Old iterators would raise an exception when
>their next() is called with an argument, and this would be a
>reasonable way to find out that you're using "continue EXPR" with an
>iterator that doesn't support it. (The C level API would be a bit
>hairier but it can all be done in a compatible way.)

+1.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053485.html below:

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