On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 05:10:45PM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote: | > The __iter__-On-Iterators Issue: | > | > Some people have mentioned that the presence of an __iter__() | > method is a way of signifying that an object supports the | > iterator protocol. It has been said that this is necessary | > because the presence of a "next()" method is not sufficiently | > distinguishing. | | Not me. As I remember the debate last year, Ping is expressing the concensus which was reached. This issue was tied directly, although not so articulately, to the namespace collision issue. I remember being concerned about next() not having leading and trailing __ but my concerns were put to rest knowing that every iterator had to have a __iter__ such that __iter__ returned self. I wasn't on the list for that long due to time constraints, but this linkage was there at least for me. | > The iteration method is currently called "next()". | > | > Previous candidates for the name of this method were "next", | > "__next__", and "__call__". After some previous debate, | > it was pronounced to be "next()". | > | > There are concerns that "next()" might collide with existing | > methods named "next()". There is also a concern that "next()" | > is inconsistent because it is the only type-slot-method that | > does not have a __special__ name. | > | > The issue is, should it be called "next" or "__next__"? | | That's a separate issue, and cleans up only a small wart that in | practice hasn't hurt anybody AFAIK. Today/tomorow I'll finish peicing together the survey so that it clearly articulates the issue (and I'll be sure to note that you are against the idea). Best, Clark -- Clark C. Evans Axista, Inc. http://www.axista.com 800.926.5525 XCOLLA Collaborative Project Management Software
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