RetroSearch Browse

Sat May 7 05:23:26 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053504.html

Guido van Rossum wrote:
[SNIP]
> 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.)
> 

I prefer the original proposal.

-Brett

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053504.html below:

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