Paul Moore wrote:
> On 5/5/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2. Manual protocol implementations are _significantly_ easier to write
>
> Hmm, I've not tried so I'll have to take your word for this. But I
> don't imagine writing manual implementations much - one of the key
> features I like about Guido's proposal is that generators can be used,
> and the implementation is a clear template, with "yield" acting as a
> "put the block here" marker (yes, I know that's an
> oversimplification!).
If using a generator is easier to code (but I tend to agree with Nick),
a new type, a one-shot-generator (not really a generator, but some type
of continuation), as suggested Steven Bethard with stmt, could be created:
def opening(filename, mode="r"):
f = open(filename, mode)
try:
yield break f
finally:
f.close()
I prefer Nick's proposal however, since it simplifies non-looping
constructs (no generator-template, break of parent loop supported),
while leaving looping constructs (a minority in IMO) possible using a
for, making things even clearer to me (but harder to implement). I'm
still not convinced at all that using generators to implement a
acquire/release pattern is a good idea...
Regards,
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
