I think this thread is ready to die. > > That version of the xrange object was broken. > > That's exactly my point. There will be more broken code like this > as long as people keep confusing iterators and iterables. Making the > language semantically cleaner should help prevent things like this > in the long run. I don't think that the language can help this. There's nothing oyu can do to remove the wart from file objects. > I remember it was pretty hard to actually convince anyone that > xrange was broken. Huh? IIRC I said it was broken right away and pushed Raymond to fix it. > When I pointed out that the xrange 'iterator' modified the state of > the xrange 'container' people responded that it's ok because this > happens with file objects, too... A confusion that you don't stamp out by "fixing" files. > > I don't see what's wrong with the file object. Iterating over a file > > changes the file's state, that's just a fact of life. > > A file object is an iterator pretending to be a container. In what sense does it pretend to be a container? File objects are what they are; they have rich semantics for a reason. > For historical reasons it uses 'readline' instead of 'next' and an > empty string instead of StopIteration but it basically does the same > job. A file object is not really a container that can produce > iterators of itself. I think this thread is ready to die. --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