At 04:44 PM 5/19/2005 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: >Michael Hudson wrote: > > > 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). > >To fix this in a fully backward-compatible way, we >need some way of distinguishing generators that >expect to be finalized. No, we don't; Guido's existing proposal is quite sufficient for using yield. We dont' need to create another old/new distinction here.
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