> > > Based on Guido's positive response, in which he asked me to make > > > an addition to the PEP, i believe Guido agrees with me that > > > __iter__ is distinct from the protocol of an iterator. This > > > surprised me because it runs counter to the philosophy previously > > > expressed in the PEP. > > > > I recognize that they are separate protocols. But because I like the > > for-loop as a convenient way to get all of the elements of an > > iterator, I want iterators to support __iter__. > > Is this the only reason iterators are required to support __iter__? Yes. > It seems like a strange design decision to put the burden on all iterator > implementers to write a dummy method returning self instead of just checking > if tp_iter==NULL in PyObject_GetIter. It's like requiring all class writers > to write a dummy __str__ method that calls __repr__ instead of implementing > the automatic fallback to __repr__ in PyObject_Str when no __str__ is > available. I suppose you meant "check for tp_iter==NULL and tp_iternext!=NULL. --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