[Guido van Rossum] > > So then the all-important question I want to pose is: do we like the > > idea of using a (degenerate, decorated) generator as a "template" for > > the do-statement enough to accept the slightly increased complexity? [Greg Ewing] > I can't see how this has anything to do with whether > a generator is used or not. Keeping them separate > seems to be a useful thing in its own right. Assuming by "them" you mean the value of EXPR and the value assigned to VAR, I don't care how this conclusion is reached, as long as their separation is seen as a useful thing. :-) I came up with the idea of making them separate when I tried to figure out how to decorate a generator to drive a PEP-310-style with-statement, and found I couldn't do it for the opening() example. (Michael Hudson illustrated this nicely in his reply in this thread. :-) But it's fine if the separation is considered generally useful even without thinking of generators. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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