Back to the bike shed argument, the use of 'continue' is incidental.
I personally like it, but I totally can see the arguments brought
against it. My main thrust is for explicit TCO in Python, to allow
for different models of computation in an explicit, Pythonic way. I
believe others have suggested making 'yield from' require tail calls,
or introducing 'yield as'. Both have their ups and downs. I'd
suggest we debate whether or not the original idea, a TCO keyword in
python, separate from what that keyword ought to be. It's no use
talking about keywords if the original idea is bunk, and I believe the
second argument can be won far more pragmatically than the first,
which requires some careful thought on all of our parts.
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Steven D'Aprano
On Mon, 4 May 2009 02:00:25 am John Graham wrote:
I want to clarify that the original suggestion was never to implement TCO 'implicitly'. I don't want to have to 'write my function just right' to get TCO to work. This is why the keyword was suggested, as it'd be an explicit way to tell the interpreter 'this is a tail-call'. If it's not, then throw an exception. Otherwise, there's no optimizations going on behind the scenes that I'm not aware of, which is the case in languages that just turn tail calls optimized behind the scenes.
Hmmm... that puts a whole new light on your proposal, at least in my mind. I'm still dubious about using the keyword continue, but less so than before. Let me think about it.
-- Steven D'Aprano _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas