Message122759
| Author | gvanrossum |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Inyeol.Lee, benjamin.peterson, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, rhettinger |
| Date | 2010-11-29.03:13:53 |
| SpamBayes Score | 5.4619755e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1291000436.7.0.985183682766.issue10544@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I think it is definitely wrong the way it works in 3.x. (Especially since it works as expected in 2.x.) I agree with Inyeol's preference of fixes: (1) make it work properly for listcomps as well as genexps, (2) if that's not possible, forbid yield in a genexp or listcomp. Note that even though yield in a genexp could be considered as having a well-defined meaning, that meaning is not useful and I would consider it as merely a coincidence of the specification, not an intentional effect. So I would be fine changing its meaning. (My assumption is that since it is not useful there is -- almost -- no code depending on that meaning.) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-11-29 03:13:56 | gvanrossum | set | recipients: + gvanrossum, georg.brandl, rhettinger, benjamin.peterson, Inyeol.Lee |
| 2010-11-29 03:13:56 | gvanrossum | set | messageid: <1291000436.7.0.985183682766.issue10544@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010-11-29 03:13:53 | gvanrossum | link | issue10544 messages |
| 2010-11-29 03:13:53 | gvanrossum | create | |