Andrew Koenig wrote:
>> Sure, that would work. Or even this, if the scheduler would
>> automatically recognize generator objects being yielded and so would run
>> the the nested coroutine until finish:
>
> This idea has been discussed before. I think the problem with recognizing
> generators as the subject of "yield" statements is that then you can't yield
> a generator even if you want to.
>
> The best syntax I can think of without adding a new keyword looks like this:
>
> yield from x
>
> which would be equivalent to
>
> for i in x:
> yield i
>
> Note that this equivalence would imply that x can be any iterable, not just
> a generator. For example:
>
> yield from ['Hello', 'world']
>
> would be equivalent to
>
> yield 'Hello'
> yield 'world'
Hmm, I actually quite like that. The best I came up with was "yield for", and
that just didn't read correctly. Whereas "yield from seq" says exactly what it
is doing.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.blogspot.com
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