[Python-ideas] Possible PEP 380 tweak

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Tue Nov 2 21:33:09 CET 2010


On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> A different approach to fixing this is for the throwing code to keep
>> throwing EOFError until the generator stops yielding values:
>
> That's precisely what I would recommend.
>
>> This solution doesn't quite work though, because the count returned
>> will include the nodes that were yielded while the stack of generators
>> was winding down.
>>
>> My pragmatic solution for this is to change the
>> protocol so that stopping the generator means that the node yielded
>> last should not be included in the count.
>
> This whole example seems contrived to me, so it's hard to
> say whether this is a good or bad solution.

I tried to come up with an example that made non-trivial use of
yield-from. Iterating over a binary tree is about the most natural
example I could think of. The desire to interrupt the iteration in the
middle also seems natural. I agree that the addition of a return value
for the whole generator is somewhat contrived. Maybe a better value to
return would have been the maximum depth encountered?

>> I propose to
>> modify g.close() to keep throwing GeneratorExit until the generator
>> stops yielding values, and then capture the return value from
>> StopIteration if that is what was raised. The beauty is then that the
>> PEP 380 expansion can stop special-casing GeneratorExit: it just
>> treats it as every other exception.
>
> This was actually suggested during the initial round of
> discussion, and shot down -- if I remember correctly, on the
> grounds that it could result in infinite loops. But if you're
> no longer concerned about that, it's worth considering.
>
> My concern is that this would be a fairly substantial change
> to the intended semantics of close() -- it would no longer be
> a way of aborting a generator and forcing it to clean up as
> quickly as possible.
>
> But maybe you don't mind losing that functionality?

I've thought about this long and hard, and in the end I do mind losing
the special semantics of GeneratorExit. I am withdrawing my proposal.
I don't think the PEP should be weighed down with a separate method +
exception to request a return value either -- rather, a framework that
needs such functionality can create a local convention. I doubt that
the intermingling of frameworks will be such that that is much of a
burden for framework users -- if it is, we can always write a PEP to
standardize such a convention later.

With this, I think PEP 380 can be accepted pretty much as is, although
it would be nice if a part of my example made it into the PEP -- I
don't think there is anything wrong with PEPs having examples.

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



More information about the Python-ideas mailing list