Shane Holloway (IEEE) wrote:
> It might actually be workable in the transaction scenario, as well as
> others. I'm not sure if I love or hate the idea though.
Given that this is officially a violation of the iterator protocol. . . (check
the docs for well-behaved iterators)
> Another thing. In the specification of the Anonymous Block function, is
> there a reason that "itr = EXPR1" instead of "itr = iter(EXPR1)"? It
> seems to be a dis-symmetry with the 'for' loop specification.
Indeed - and a deliberate one, at least partly to discourage caching of block
iterators.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
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