Greg Ewing wrote:
It's a problem when trying to specify the semantics in terms of an expansion into currently valid Python. It's not necessarily a problem in the actual implementation, which isn't constrained that way. Let's not let the limitations of what can be expressed directly in Python influence the implementation. This is just a documentation issue. You can use comments or include some an extra explanation to clarify the PEP. Or you could define it in the PEP as a class (in Python), rather than a generator.
I still (see example in another thread) think that a missing 'send' should be treated as a 'next'. To me, the "communicating directly with the caller" bit is less important than the argument that the caller is still talking to a generator that *has* a send but may ignore the values sent.
Yes, I'm starting to think that way, too. Has anybody shown a use-case for this?
- bruce frederiksen