On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 03:15:30AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > [Guido] > > I've got a fairly complete implementation of iterators along the lines > > of Ping's PEP (slightly updated). > > ... > > My question is: should I just merge this code onto the trunk (making > > it part of 2.2), or should we review the design more before committing > > to this implementation? > My answer is both! *Most* of what you described is no longer controversial; > 2.2 is mondo pre-alpha (so we're not "stuck" with anything you check in now); > and it's much more convenient (for me - heh) to try out if it's in the > regular build tree. I bet Greg Wilson would like it for his Set PEP work > too, as abusing the __getitem__ protocol for set iteration is giving him > headaches. WRT what may still be controversial points, there's no substitute > for trying a thing. I don't totally agree. Removing something from the trunk is not as easy as not adding it ;) But I agree that, since the *concept* of iterators, and the basic implementation, all are good things, they should be checked in. I still don't like: > > ... > > - The test "key in dict" is implemented as "dict.has_key(key)". (This > > was done by implementing the sq_contains slot. > That's probably controversial, but also easy to rip out (sounds approximately > self-contained) if the peasants storm your castle with flaming dungballs > <wink>. Fetchez-la-vache!-ly y'rs (Oh, now I get it... Iterators are Guido's wooden rabbit, with 'key-in-dict' hidden inside... I just hope it's Sir Bedevere that's building it ;) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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