
May 18, 2005
5:27 p.m.
Should this maybe just be added to PEP 342? To me, PEP 342 has always seemed incomplete without ways to throw() and close(), but that could easily be just me. In any case I'd expect the implementation of 'next(arg)' to have some overlap with the implementation of 'throw()'.
Maybe, but on the other hand this idea can be done independently from PEP 342. After the "monster-PEP" 340, I'd rather break proposals up in small parts.
+1 I want this as a separate PEP. It is a straight-forward solution to long standing issues. I would rather not have it contaminated with distracting issues and co-routine dreams. Raymond