I wrote:
> __iter__ is a red herring.
[...blah blah blah...]
> The short of it is that whenever any Python programmer says
> "for x in y", he or she had better be darned sure of whether
> this is going to destroy y. Whatever we can do to make this
> clear would be a good idea.
Guido wrote:
> This is a very good summary of the two iterator protocols. Ping,
> would you mind adding this to PEP 234?
And i thought it was a critique. Fascinating, Captain. :)
I'm happy to add the text, but i want to be clear, then: is it
acceptable to write an iterator that only provides <next> if you
only care about the "iteration protocol" and not the "for-able
protocol"?
I see that "ought to" is the most opinion the PEP is willing to
give on the topic:
A class is a valid iterator object when it defines a next()
method that behaves as described above. A class that wants
to be an iterator also ought to implement __iter__()
returning itself.
-- ?!ng
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