On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 06:22:05AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote: > Oren, > > I like the direction this is going in, but I have some reservations about > any protocol which requires users to avoid using a simple method name like > next() on their own multi-pass sequence types unless they intend their > sequence to be treated as single-pass. I'm not too thrilled about it, either, but I don't think it's too bad. If you implement an object with an __iter__ method you must be aware of the iteration protocol and the next method. If you put a next method on an iterable you are most probably confusing iterators and iterables and not just using the name 'next' for some other innocent purpose. > One other possibility: if x.__iter__() is x, it's a single-pass sequence. I > realize this involves actually invoking the __iter__ method and conjuring > up a new iterator, but that's generally a lightweight operation... I think it is critical that all protocols should be defined by something passive like presence of attributes and attributes of attributes and not by active probing. I don't see how a future typing system could be retrofitted to Python otherwise (pssst, don't tell anyone, but I'm working on such a system...) Oren
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