Greg Ewing wrote: > As for confusion, we ignore the return values of function > calls all the time, without worrying that someone might be > confused by the fact that their return value doesn't go > anywhere. And that's the right way to think of a yield-from > expression -- as a kind of function call, not a kind of yield. > > If there's anything confusing, it's the presence of the > word 'yield'. Its only virtue is that it gives a clue that > the construct has something to do with generators, but > you'll have to RTM to find out exactly what. Nobody has > thus far suggested any better name, however. If the yield in 'yield from' does not make the function a generator, then perhaps 'return from' would be clearer.
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