yield_all needed in Python

[Mike C. Fletcher]

Skip Montanaro wrote:
...

>If this idea advances I'd rather see extra syntactic sugar introduced to
>complement the current yield statement instead of adding a new keyword.
>It's a bit clumsy to come up with something that will work syntactically
>since the next token following the yield keyword can be any identifier.
>You'd thus need another keyword there.  Something like:
>  
>
I'd agree on *not* introducing a new keyword.  I run into this issue 
every once in a while, but new keywords for minor syntactic sugar seems 
a bit much.

>       # Some code here
>       yield from foogen1(arg3)
>  
>
...

>It would be nicer if that was
>
>    yield all from <something>
>  
>
I don't really like the need to look past that (potentially long) 
expression to see the effect of the operation.  I don't mind the yield 
from syntax, it nicely encapsulates the learning of "generators" so that 
when you see yield up front you know something generatish is going on.

I'd be fine with:

    for yield on foogen1(arg3)

or

    for yield from foogen1(arg3)

which goes more toward the idea of being syntactic sugar for a for loop 
that yields each value that is produced.  Of course, what happens with:

    [ for yield from foogen1(arg3) ]

would then have to be defined... that might make it too complex an 
change.  Oh well.

Have fun all,
Mike

________________________________________________
  Mike C. Fletcher
  Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
  http://www.vrplumber.com
  http://blog.vrplumber.com
                              PyCon is coming...