[Python-ideas] Merging a generator's "next" and "send" methods?

[Guido van Rossum]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Andrey Fedorov <anfedorov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Since .next() seems to be equivalent to .send(None), why wasn't .next() just
> given an optional parameter which defaults to None?

Because for built-in iterator types the next() method is implemented
in C and we didn't want to invalidate existing C code by giving it an
optional argument.

But why do you care?

--Guido

> - Andrey
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Simon Forman <sajmikins at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Andrey Fedorov <anfedorov at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > As far as I can tell, a generator's .next() is equivalent to
>> > .send(None). Is
>> > this true?
>>
>> They are equivalent AFAIK.
>>
>> > If so, [why] aren't they unified in a method with a single argument
>> > which defaults
>> > to None?
>> > - Andrey
>>
>> next() predates send().
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>
>



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)