[Phillip J. Eby] > And there was much rejoicing in the land of the co-routiney people. :) +1000. > > Should this maybe just be added to PEP 342? To me, PEP 342 has always > seemed incomplete without ways to throw() and close(), but that could > easily be just me. In any case I'd expect the implementation of > 'next(arg)' to have some overlap with the implementation of 'throw()'. Maybe, but on the other hand this idea can be done independently from PEP 342. After the "monster-PEP" 340, I'd rather break proposals up in small parts. > Also, if the generator yields a value upon close(), shouldn't that throw a > runtime error? Otherwise, you have no way to know the generator's > exception handling is broken. Maybe. But then what should happen when this happens to close() invoked by the GC? I guess the same as when a __del__() method raises an exception -- print a traceback and go on. OK, works for me. -- --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