Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Wed 20 Aug 2014 16:41, Kevin Smith<zenparsing at gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> >  I'm still curious why we need to go through such exercises, though. It
>> >  seems clear to me that this is a weakness of the current design, and
>> >  would be easily addressed with syntax. Is there a back-story that I'm
>> >  not aware of?
>
> No backstory that I'm aware of -- only something that doesn't really
> fall out from the generators design.  There's just no sensible name you
> could give the value (without getting "creative" with lexical scope),
> and no continuation waiting to receive it.

Right. Anyone know whether this has come up as a PEP or suggestion on 
python-dev?

The meeting notes Kevin cited in the thread root don't mention it, but 
IIRC we did briefly talk about syntax that could be added in a future 
edition (AKA next year in a spec, next month in a browser 
implementation) for receiving that first-next value:

function* gen(a, b, c) first {
   ...
}

Not bikeshedding, some found it ugly or too terse, many wondered about 
other future syntax vying to go after the parameter list. But the idea 
seems good.

/be

Right. Anyone know whether this has come up as a PEP or suggestion on 
python-dev?

The meeting notes Kevin cited in the thread root don't mention it, but 
IIRC we did briefly talk about syntax that could be added in a future 
edition (AKA next year in a spec, next month in a browser 
implementation) for receiving that first-next value:

```js
function* gen(a, b, c) first {
   ...
}
```

Not bikeshedding, some found it ugly or too terse, many wondered about 
other future syntax vying to go after the parameter list. But the idea 
seems good.