On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM, geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
On 13/08/10 13:02, Ivan Pozdeev wrote:
The original proposal for introducing 'yield from' (which is still in PEP 380's name) was to delegate a part of generator's work to another generator. However, in later discussions, the focus totally shifted to cooperative multitasking.
I still regard delegation as an important use case for yield-from. I haven't dwelled much on delegation of plain value-yielding generators in my examples because it seems rather obvious and straightforward. My coroutine examples are meant to show the motivation for some of the less-obvious aspects of yield-from, such as the ability to return a value.
I won't pretend to understand the current discussion or its motivation, but I know I would appreciate it if examples of the obvious-and-straightforward variety were added.
Yes, it would be nice if PEP 380's generator delegation forest didn't get lost in the cofunction trees :) I think the cofunction discussion suggests that there are some very different possible answers as to what is the scheduler's responsibility and what is the responsibility of the individual coroutines. Picking one of them as a winner by blessing it with syntax seems rather premature. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia