Josiah Carlson wrote:
> You should know why that can't work. If I pass a list, is a list an
> iterator? No, but it should neither be created nor destroyed before or
> after.
>
> The discussion has been had in regards to why re-using 'for' is a
> non-starter; re-read the 200+ messages in the thread.
>
> - Josiah
I agree, re-using or extending 'for' doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
I wonder how much effect adding, 'for-next' and the 'StopIteration'
exception check as proposed in PEP340, will have on 'for''s performance.
And why this isn't just as good:
try:
for value in iterator:
BLOCK1
except StopIteration:
BLOCK2
Is one extra line that bad?
I think a completely separate looping or non-looping construct would be
better for the finalization issue, and maybe can work with class's with
__exit__ as well as generators.
Having it loop has the advantage of making it break out in a better
behaved way. So may be Nicks PEP, would work better with a different
keyword?
Hint: 'do'
Cheers,
Ron_Adam
_______________________________________________
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
