[Python-Dev] Breaking off Enhanced Iterators PEP from PEP 340

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 01:18 PM 5/6/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>There's one alternative possible (still orthogonal to PEP 340):
>instead of __next__(), we could add an optional argument to the next()
>method, and forget about the next() built-in. This is more compatible
>(if less future-proof). Old iterators would raise an exception when
>their next() is called with an argument, and this would be a
>reasonable way to find out that you're using "continue EXPR" with an
>iterator that doesn't support it. (The C level API would be a bit
>hairier but it can all be done in a compatible way.)

+1.