At 01:28 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > Okay. Maybe we should just update PEP 325, then? > >-1. > >Keep this separate. Have you read PEP 325 lately? Mostly the change would consist of deleting rejected options or moving them to a rejected options section. The only other change would be adding a short section stating how throw() would work and that it's being made public to support the future use of generators as flow-control templates. A new PEP would have to copy, reinvent, or reference large chunks of PEP 325, resulting in either redundancy or excess complexity. Or are you suggesting a new PEP for throw(), containing *only* an explanation of its semantics, and then modifying PEP 325 to indicate that it will be implemented using the new PEP's 'throw()'? That's about the only scenario that makes sense to me for adding a new PEP, because PEP 325 is already pretty darn complete with respect to close() and GC.
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