On Mar 25, 7:31 pm, Winston Wolff <winst...@stratolab.com> wrote: (a bunch of stuff about coroutines)
There have been proposals in the past for more full-featured generators, that would work as general purpose coroutines. Among other things, there were issues with exception propagation, and the design was deliberately simplified to what we have today. Before proposing anything in this area you should carefully read PEPs 288, 325, and 342, and all the discussion about those PEPs in the python- dev archives. After reading all that, and still being convinced that you have the greatest thing since sliced bread (and that you REALLY understand all the concerns about exceptions and other things), you need to update your document to address all the concerns raised in the discussions on those PEPs, put on your asbestos suit (modern asbestos-free replacements never work as advertised), and then re-post your document. Personally, I am very interested in co-routines, but I have very little time right now, and am not at all interested in reading a proposal from somebody who doesn't know the full history of how generators got to be the way they are (the lack of coroutines is not an accidental oversight). I suspect I am not alone in this opinion, so there is probably some interest in a realistic proposal, but perhaps also some skepticism about whether a realistic proposal can actually be engineered... Best regards and good luck! Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
