generators improvement

[John Roth]

"Duncan Booth" <duncan at NOSPAMrcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns93DC5C1AFAB9Eduncanrcpcouk at 127.0.0.1...
> Oleg Leschov <kalmas at udm.ru> wrote in
> news:bhtiij$psc$2 at ocasysi.rubbernet.net:
>
> > What needs to be done is to allow yield return something - whatever was
> > passed to the .next() thing from caller..
> > Easy and obvious, isn't it? So is there any principal problem with this
> > idea that would prevents its implementation?
>
> Please read PEP 288, http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0288.html
> in particular the section:
>
> > Rejected Alternative
> >     One idea for passing data into a generator was to pass an argument
> >     through next() and make a assignment using the yield keyword:
> >
> >         datain = yield dataout
> >           . . .
> >         dataout = gen.next(datain)
> >
> >     The intractable problem is that the argument to the first next()
call
> >     has to be thrown away, because it doesn't correspond to a yield
> >     keyword.

"I can't figure out how to do it so that it satisfies my sense of esthetics"
is not the same as "this problem doesn't need to be solved."

John Roth
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Duncan Booth                                             duncan at rcp.co.uk
> int month(char *p){return(124864/((p[0]+p[1]-p[2]&0x1f)+1)%12)["\5\x8\3"
> "\6\7\xb\1\x9\xa\2\0\4"];} // Who said my code was obscure?