On 02May2009 11:47, Carl Johnson wrote:
| John Graham wrote:
| > There are some alternative designs for this problems that have been
| > proposed. SJBrown has proposed a similar syntax, using the two
| > keywords 'continue as' instead of simply 'continue'. This would
| > further make clear to users unfamiliar with continuations that
| > behavior is expected to be different here, and the English still flows
| > elegantly. It does, however, reuse the 'as' keyword in an unfamiliar
| > way.
|
| I'm not sure what I think about redefining the continue keyword, but
| has anyone already proposed doing "yield as" instead of "yield from"?
| To me it make that wording makes a little more sense, "OK, you're not
| yielding as f anymore, now you've silently replaced yourself with g
| and it's 'as if' g is doing the yielding." "Yield from" makes it clear
| that all of the values of g will be yielded, but "yield as" makes it
| clear that things like .send(), etc. will be sent to g and not
| intercepted by f in any real way.
I'm a little uncomfortable with yield as.
We've got:
import foo as bar
from foo import zot as bah
with fred() as bah: ...
All of these place a new name "bah" into the namespace for further use.
"yield as" doesn't, but reads to me like it should.
--
Cameron Simpson DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
From the back of the research lab, the sound of a large metallic pile of
loose objects collapsing, accompanied by a loud "Aaaaiiieeyyrrgghhh!!" from
George. A few seconds of silence, then: "I'll have to call you back."
