from __future__ import generators
s713221 at student.gu.edu.au
Tue Aug 14 08:52:30 CEST 2001
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's still open for debate -- the newsgroup doesn't seem to be
> But note that future statements were intended in the first place to
> avoid *silent* breakage -- where existing code suddenly means
> something different. This was the case (in some rare situations) with
> nested scopes and is clearly the case with division.
> Use of 'yield' as an identifier is not a silent breakage -- there has
> to be at least one defining occurrence of yield when used as a
> variable, function, module or class name, and that will always be a
> syntax error. This is why I proposed that, *if* there is enough
> popular support, the future generators statement might be
> unnecessary. But it doesn't look likely.
Would it be possible to include something in the compile options? So
that if a person chooses to do so, they can automatically include all
__future__ directives into the executable?
Joal Heagney is: _____ _____
/\ _ __ __ _ | | _ ___ |
/__\|\ || ||__ |\ || |___|/_\|___] |
/ \ \_||__ ||___| \_|! | | \ \ !
More information about the Python-list