On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Tim Peters wrote: > "for" did and does work in accord with a simple protocol, and whether that's > "destructive" depends on how the specific objects involved implement their > pieces of the protocol, not on the protocol itself. The same is true of all > of Python's hookable protocols. Name any protocol for which the question "does this mutate?" has no answer. (I ask you to accept that __call__ is a special case.) > What's so special about "for" that it > should pretend to deliver purely functional behavior in a highly > non-functional language? Who said anything about functional behaviour? I'm not requiring that looping *never* mutate. I just want to be able to tell *whether* it will. -- ?!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