> > I've just had a thought. Maybe it would be less of a mess > > if what we are calling "iterators" had been called "streams" > > Possibly -- I did use the "streams" name often in the tutorial > on iterators and generators, it's a very natural term. OTOH in C++ and Java, "stream" refers to an open file object (to emphasize the iteratorish feeling of a file opened for sequential reading or writing, as opposed to the concept of a file as a random-access array of bytes on disk). > Seekable files can be multi-pass, but in the strict sense > that you can rewind them -- it's still impractical to have > them produce multiple *independent* iterators (needing > some sort of in-memory caching). It would be trivial if you had an object representing the notion of a file on disk rather than an open file. Each iterator would be implemented as a separate open file referring to the same filename. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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