>>>>> "MZ" == Moshe Zadka <moshez@zadka.site.co.il> writes:
MZ> Basic response: I *love* the iter(), sq_iter and __iter__
MZ> parts. I tremble at seeing the rest. Why not add a method to
MZ> dictionaries .iteritems() and do
| for (k, v) in dict.iteritems():
| pass
MZ> (dict.iteritems() would return an an iterator to the items)
Moshe, I had exactly the same reaction and exactly the same idea. I'm
a strong -1 on introducing new syntax for this when new methods can
handle it in a much more readable way (IMO).
Another idea would be to allow the iterator() method to take an
argument:
for key in dict.iterator()
a.k.a.
for key in dict.iterator(KEYS)
and also
for value in dict.iterator(VALUES)
for key, value in dict.iterator(ITEMS)
One problem is that the constants KEYS, VALUES, and ITEMS would either
have to be defined some place, or you'd just use values like 0, 1, 2,
which is less readable perhaps than just having iteratoritems(),
iteratorkeys(), and iteratorvalues() methods. Alternative spellings:
itemsiter(), keysiter(), valsiter()
itemsiterator(), keysiterator(), valuesiterator()
iiterator(), kiterator(), viterator()
ad-nauseum-ly y'rs,
-Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4