Just wanted to politically come out as in favor of painting the bikeshed any damn color, so long as we build it :) In other words, I'm just as supportive of another 'yield' construct as I am 'continue', if it were to serve the same role that's proposed. The main thrust of the 'continue' argument was that many of the criticisms of allowing TCO into the language disappear if we make it explicit, so the user doesn't have to guess. On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM, 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.

My 2-cents on the bikeshed,

-- Carl _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas