[Python-ideas] Revised revised revised PEP on yield-from
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Tue Feb 17 06:06:08 CET 2009
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> There better be a pretty darn good reason to do this.
> I think that making it easy to use generators as
> lightweight threads is a good enough reason.
I still expect that even with the new syntax this will be pretty
cumbersome, and require the user to be aware of all sorts of oddities
and restrictions. I think it may be better to leave this to libraries
like Greenlets and systems like Stackless which manage to hind the
mechanics much better.
Also, the asymmetry between "yield expr" (which returns a value passed
in by the caller using .send()) and "yield from expr" (which returns a
value coming from the sub-generator) really bothers me.
Finally, your PEP currently doesn't really do this use case justice;
can you provide a more complete motivating example? I don't quite
understand how I would write the function that is delegated to as
"yield from g(x)" nor do I quite see what the caller of the outer
generator should expect from successive next() or .send() calls.
>> I really don't
>> like overloading return this way -- normally returning from a
>> generator is equivalent to falling off the end and raises
> It still is. It's just that if you happen to return a
> value, it gets attached to the StopIteration for the
> use of anything that wants to care. It will make no
> difference at all to anything already existing.
So, "return" is equivalent to "raise StopIteration" and "return
<value>" is equivalent to "raise StopIteration(<value>)"? I suppose I
could live with that.
> Also, if a generator that returns something gets called
> in a context that doesn't know about generator return
> values, the value is simply discarded, just as with
> an ordinary function call that ignores the return
>> I'm not sure I like this interpretation of .send() -- it looks
>> asymmetrical with the way .send() to non-generator iterators is
>> treated in other contexts, where it is an error.
> I wouldn't object to raising an exception in that case.
> Come to think of it, doing that would me more consistent
> with the idea of the caller talking directly to the
>> And that could in turn be a generator with another such slot, right?
> That's right.
>> Hopefully the testing for the presence of .throw, .send and .close
>> could be done once at the start of the yield-from and represented as a
>> set of flags.
> Yes. You could even cache bound methods for these if you
>> I recommend that you produce a working implementation of this; who
>> knows what other issues you might run into
> Good idea. I'll see what I can come up with.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-ideas