On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 05:45:48AM -0700, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> > To summarize, I agree that "for" mutating the object can be surprising.
>
> The rub is, the only way for it to *not* be surprising is to have a
> way to *say* "loop destructively". If you can't express your
> expectations, there's no way to meet them.
It doesn't seem very useful to say "loop destructively" - in these cases I
don't usually care whether it's destructive or not. It is useful, though,
to be able to say "loop INdestructively".
That's how I do it:
def reiter(obj):
""" Return an object's iterator, raise exception if object does not
appear to support multiple iterations """
assert not isintance(obj, file)
itr = iter(obj)
assert itr is not obj
return itr
Oren
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