RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 3 15:33:25 CEST 2007 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-August/074084.html

Kevin Jacobs <jacobs at bioinformed.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/07, *Facundo Batista* <facundobatista at gmail.com 
> <mailto:facundobatista at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     2007/8/3, Andrew Bennetts <andrew-pythondev at puzzling.org
>     <mailto:andrew-pythondev at puzzling.org>>:
> 
>      > I don't really think there's much reason to make "iter()"
>     work.  As you say,
> 
>     What bad thing could happen if we make iter() work? If nothing, we
>     should ask ourselves: which is the more intuitive behaviour to expect
>     of iter()? To raise an exception or to return an empty iterator?
> 
>     I'm +0 for the latter.
> 
> 
> -1.  I'm a heavy user of iterators on finite and infinite streams and, 
> for me, iter() is an error that I do not want to paper over.  The 
> alternate logic implies, e.g ., len() should return 0.
> 
-1 here too. iter() should have an argument just like sum() and len().

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd           http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb      http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
--------------- Asciimercial ------------------
Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet
Many services currently offer free registration
----------- Thank You for Reading -------------

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-August/074084.html below:

[Python-Dev] make iter() return an empty iterator?