> Guido van Rossum wrote: > > - There really isn't anything "broken" about the current situation; > > it's just that "next" is the only method name mapped to a slot in > > the type object that doesn't have leading and trailing double > > underscores. > > Are you saying the _only_ reason to rename it is for consistency with > the other type slot method names? That's really weak, IMHO, and not > worth any kind of backwards incompatibility (which seems unavoidable). > > Neil Almost. This means that we're retroactively saying that all objects with a next method are iterators, thereby slightly stomping on the user's namespace. But as long a you don't use such an object as an iterator, it's harmless. And if my position wasn't clear already, I agree it's not worth "fixing". :-) --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