[Python-ideas] Possible PEP 380 tweak

Greg Ewing greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
Sat Oct 30 08:12:54 CEST 2010

Guido van Rossum wrote:

> I thought the basics weren't even decided?

I'll be posting a new version soon that ought to pin
things down more precisely, then we'll have something
to talk about.

> I truly wish it was easier to experiment with syntax -- it would be so
> much simpler if these PEPs could be accompanied by a library that
> people can just import to use the new syntax

Hmmm. Maybe if there were an option to use a parser and
compiler written in pure Python? It wouldn't be fast,
but it would be easier to hack experimental features into.

> If there was a separate PEP specifying *just* returning a value from a
> generator and how to get at that value using g.close(), without
> yield-from, would those problems still exist?

I don't think it's necessary to move the value-returning
part into another PEP, because it doesn't conflict with
anything. But close() returning that value could easily
be moved into another PEP that depended on PEP 380.

PEP 3152 would still depend on 380, not on the new PEP.

 > Would PEP 3152 make sense with PEP X but without (the rest
> of) PEP 380?

For PEP 3152 to *not* depend on PEP 380, it would have
to duplicate almost all of PEP 380's content.


More information about the Python-ideas mailing list