from __future__ import generators

Joal Heagney 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
> unanimous.
> 
> 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 mailing list