Stackless 3.0 alpha 1 at blinding speed
tim_one at email.msn.com
Sun Apr 20 18:51:41 CEST 2003
[A.M. Kuchling, points to
> Thanks. It seems Tim is making a heroic effort to explain the new in
> terms of the old. This necessarily must fail, but what other option is
> there instead of rebuilding all terminology out of gotos?
You're missing a decade of history <wink>: as that post says at the start,
Here's my biased short course.
I argued in favor of adding generators to Python starting in about 1991.
Every time I tried, the effort got hijacked by people going on about
continuations. The post's primary point was that generators *can* be
explained "in terms of the old", and easily. I think it succeeded at that.
Coroutines are harder, but can still be seen as a natural extension.
Continuations require a different mindset entirely, and I believe that post
was instrumental in (finally) getting generators taken seriously as a
feature that didn't require buying into continuations first.
Continuations are a different *foundation* for implementing control-flow
features, more than they're a feature in their own right. While they're an
elegant foundation, they're not the foundation Guido (or 99.9+% of the
world's other language designers) chose at the start, and it remains
unlikely that any Python Guido works on will adopt them.
More information about the Python-list