[Fwd: Re: Scheme style and Python style [was: Re: Typed Python?]]
Paul Prescod <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.prothon.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
FYI...the eternal debate (in every language community) about the role of continuations... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Scheme style and Python style [was: Re: Typed Python?] Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:05:11 -0400 From: François Pinard <[email protected]> To: Michele Simionato <[email protected]> CC: [email protected] References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> [Michele Simionato] > Yes, indeed having iterators and generators built-in in the language > (as well as an exception system) exhaust most of the use case for > continuation so you don't really feel the need for them in Python in > normal circumstances. I recently worked on my little `pynits' tool (hoping to release it a third time, as soon as I'm satisfied enough with the changes), and have a need for continuations there. The circumstances for that need may be slightly unusual, but I would surely not qualify them as abnormal :-). Suddenly backtracking out of a complex involvement for restarting in a new direction, for the above project at least, requires a lot of state resumption, and doing this cleanly in Python implies a rather strict and burdening discipline about where and how the state information is kept. While tractable, this is not as comfortable as I would have liked it... Maybe I'll find better ways if I let the problem mature enough? :-) -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list