Please comment on Draft PEP for Enhanced Generators

[Dr. David Mertz]

I want to hearily endorse all the elements of Hettinger's PEP proposal.
All of the extensions to generators seem enormously useful, and very
logical extensions of existing capabilities.

Just a couple comments:

  The new builtins can obviously be programmed in exactly the way given
  in the PEP.  In principle, users can start using them today.  But
  making the functions builtins makes sure that they are familiar more
  widely.

  The ints() thing can be aliased also, of course.  I actually like the
  spelling 'ints' or 'ints()' better than 'xrange(sys.maxint)'.  But I
  can get this just by writing:

    ints = xrange(sys.maxint)

  or:

    ints = lambda: xrange(sys.maxint)

  (giving a slight spelling variation in the loop involving the ints).

  Here's the part where I might add something helpful to the "Generator
  Parameter Passing" suggestion.  I have written an article for IBM dW
  (in my _Charming Python_ series) that discusses how to simulate full
  coroutines using Python 2.2 generators.  I think the approach is
  rather elegant, actually.  However, exotic flow constructs like that I
  try out could be expressed even more cleanly with the addition of
  Hettinger's suggestion.  A non-official draft of my column is at:

    http://gnosis.cx/publish/programming/charming_python_b5.txt

  (normally I let IBM get through editing and publication before I put
  up a personal copy, but this seems germane to the current
  discussion... please do not add the URL to any webpage links though,
  until it makes it to IBM).

Yours, David...

--
mertz@  | The specter of free information is haunting the `Net!  All the
gnosis  | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into an unholy
.cx     | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their chains.  Unite
        | against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy regimes!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------