>>>>> Grant Edwards <inva...@invalid.invalid> (GE) wrote:
>GE> On 2009-09-25, Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> wrote: >>>>>>>> exar...@twistedmatrix.com (e) wrote: >>> >e> I specifically left out all "yield" statements in my version, since that's >e> exactly the point here. :) With "real" coroutines, they're not necessary - >e> coroutine calls look just like any other call. With Python's enhanced >e> generators, they are. >>> >>> The first time I encountered coroutines was in Simula-67. Coroutine >>> switching was certainly explicit there. IIRC, the keyword was resume. >GE> I'm not sure exactly what "coroutine calls" refers to, but the >GE> "mis-feature" in Python co-routines that's being discussed is >GE> the fact that you can only yeild/resume from the main coroutine >GE> function. Yes, I know, but the discussion had drifted to making the yield invisible, if I understood correctly. >GE> You can't call a function that yields control back to the other >GE> coroutine(s). By jumping through some hoops you can get the >GE> same effect, but it's not very intuitive and it sort of "feels >GE> wrong" that the main routine has to know ahead of time when >GE> calling a function whether that function might need to yield or >GE> not. I know. I think this is an implementation restriction in Python, to make stack management easier. Although if you would lift this restriction some new syntax would have to be invented to distinguish a generator from a normal function. -- Piet van Oostrum <p...@cs.uu.nl> URL: http://pietvanoostrum.com [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: p...@vanoostrum.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
