RetroSearch Browse

Mon May 16 11:38:37 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053890.html

Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> PEP 340 is still my favorite, but it seems there's too much opposition
>> to it,
>
> I'm not opposed to PEP 340 in principle, but the
> ramifications seemed to be getting extraordinarily
> complicated, and it seems to be hamstrung by
> various backwards-compatibility constraints.
> E.g. it seems we can't make for-loops work the way
> they should in the face of generator finalisation
> or we break old code.

I think I zoned this part of the discussion out, but I've written code
like this:

lineiter = iter(aFile)

for line in lineiter:
    if sectionmarker in line:
        break
    parseSection1Line(line)

for line in lineiter:
    if sectionmarker in line:
        break
    parseSection2Line(line)

(though, not *quite* that regular...)

This is, to me, neat and clear.  I don't find the idea that iterators
are tied to exactly 1 for loop an improvement (even though they
usually will be).

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  <thirmite> what's a web widget??
  <glyph> thirmite: internet on a stick, on fire
  <Acapnotic> with web sauce!
                                                -- from Twisted.Quotes

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053890.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 343 - Abstract Block Redux