This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | cito |
|---|---|
| Recipients | cito, georg.brandl |
| Date | 2008年03月02日.22:27:55 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.0020127732 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1204496876.92.0.69876725869.issue2217@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Thanks, this now makes sense to me. You're right, it's rather an ugly wart than a bug. But I think the Python reference needs to be improved to make this clear enough. How about the following proposed addtions (in square brackets) to section 5.2.5 (http://docs.python.org/ref/genexpr.html): "Variables used in the generator expression are evaluated lazily [in the scope of the generator function] when the next() method is called for [the] generator object (in the same fashion as normal generators). However, the leftmost for clause is immediately evaluated [in the current scope] so that [an] error produced by it can be seen before any other possible error in the code that handles the generator expression. Subsequent for [and if] clauses cannot be evaluated immediately since they may depend on the previous for loop." |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年03月02日 22:27:57 | cito | set | spambayes_score: 0.00201277 -> 0.0020127732 recipients: + cito, georg.brandl |
| 2008年03月02日 22:27:56 | cito | set | spambayes_score: 0.00201277 -> 0.00201277 messageid: <1204496876.92.0.69876725869.issue2217@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年03月02日 22:27:56 | cito | link | issue2217 messages |
| 2008年03月02日 22:27:55 | cito | create | |