Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 01:58 PM 5/6/2005 +1000, Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) wrote:
>
>>Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should make a significant break
>>(no pun intended ;) and have for-loops attempt to ensure that iterators
>>are exhausted.
>
>
> This is simply not backward compatib
At 01:58 PM 5/6/2005 +1000, Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) wrote:
>Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should make a significant break
>(no pun intended ;) and have for-loops attempt to ensure that iterators
>are exhausted.
This is simply not backward compatible with existing, perfectly valid and
Greg Ewing wrote:
> I'm still bothered by the idea of for-loops not participating
> in the new generator finalization protocol.
I agree - that's always been nagging at me too.
The problem with it is that then you either:
1. Have a guarantee that an iterator will be exhausted when the for loop
e
