> Would it be good to use __next__() if it exists, else try next()? Then the code in typeobject.c (e.g. resolve_slotdups) would have to map tp_iternext to *both* __next__ and next. > This doesn't fix the current 'wart,' however, it could allow > moving closer to the desired end. It could cause confusion. > For compatability, one would only need to do: > > next = __next__ > > or vica versa. > > Not sure this is worth it. But if there is a transition, it could > ease the pain. I don't think it's worth it. --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