Suggesting a new feature - "Inverse Generators"

Diez B. Roggisch deetsNOSPAM at
Fri Mar 25 19:13:48 CET 2005

> I'll try to reduce my pages of ranting to a single question. In
> posting, i was wondering if the "syntactic sugar" (Acceptors) that i
> invented to implement the solution is of any general interest. So are
> there maybe examples less straightforward than this one, where
> Acceptors work better? Or can you always just "turn the generator
> inside out" in the way you have done here?
> If you can always do it your way, well, thats a powerful design
> pattern, and it just goes to show my faith in Generators was justified
> :) And that I wasnt thinking hard /clearly enough about how to use
> them.
> There are other issues, like "Does the Acceptor syntax, although
> perhaps functionally equivalent to other methods, ever make the code
> more readable, easier to parse, etc?" But they're a lot less important
> i'd say.

To me your acceptors look like micro-threads or similar concepts that have
been popped up here every now and then - but so far it seems they didn't
end up beeing included. I can't say for what reasons though.

Just yesterday I looked into stackless python to grasp what it does, and
while it is not syntactically different to standard python, it seems to
make coding the way you intend to do possible.


Diez B. Roggisch

More information about the Python-list mailing list