All of this debate is moot without the foundation of a common library on which we would be building these coroutines. Any proposal of a specific coroutine syntax is worthless without a time and community tested coroutine implementation, which would be subject to the same rigerous inclusion requirements as any other 3rd party library. Only then, some time in the future, would any argument about a specific syntax be worth real consideration. Let's not jump the shark. On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Willem Broekema wrote: > >> Function g violates the current limitation that generators can't >> return with a value. So can g only be used using "yield *" then, or >> would that limitation be removed? > > The limitation would be removed, in the interests > of making it easier to use generators as coroutines. > > -- > Greg > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ironfroggy%40gmail.com > -- Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting! http://techblog.ironfroggy.com/ Follow me if you're into that sort of thing: http://www.twitter.com/ironfroggy
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