Raymond Hettinger added the comment: > It's mostly pedagogical - similar to "normal functions" > vs "generator functions",
I see a need for this but object to calling it a "generator" rather than a "function that makes a generator" or "generator creating function" or somesuch. There is a huge semantic difference between the two. Another thought this that I'm not sure that a __repr__ should try usurp something that is the primary responsibility of a docstring or function annotation here. Whether a function call runs code and returns a value or whether it returns a generator is fundamental to what the function does. The usual job of the __repr__ is to tell what the object is. The usual job of a docstring or type annotation to the describe what is returned. > Marking closure functions as such is a bit more subtle. > However, there ia a real point that closure functions > have a hidden input. I don't see a need for this and think it make cause more confusion than help. I try to teach that callables are all conceptually the same thing (something that has a __call__ method). It matters very little whether a callable is implemented as a closure or using a class with a __call__ method. So, put me down for -1 on this one. ---------- nosy: +rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue24056> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
