aahz wrote: > While technically true, that seems to be sidestepping the point from = my > POV. really? are you arguing that when Ping says that for-in shouldn't destroy the target, he's really saying that python shouldn't allow methods to have side effects if they can be called from an expression used in a for-in statement? why would he say that? > I think that few people see for loops as inherently non-destructive > due to the use case I presented above. I think most people can tell the difference between an object and a method with side-effects. I doubt they would be able to get much done in Python if they couldn't. > Beyond that, the for loop is itself inherently mutating in Python > older than 2.2 in what sense? it calls the object's __getitem__ method with an integer index value, until it gets an IndexError. in what way is that "inherently mutating"? </F>
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