On 22 Nov 2014 02:51, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:47:58 -0800 > Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Another issue is that it breaks the way I and others have taught for years that generators are a kind of iterator (an object implementing the iterator protocol) and that a primary motivation for generators is to provide a simpler and more direct way of creating iterators. However, Chris explained that, "This proposal causes a separation of generators and iterators, so it's no longer possible to pretend that they're the same thing." That is a major and worrisome conceptual shift. > > I agree with Raymond on this point. A particularly relevant variant of the idiom is the approach of writing "__iter__" directly as a generator, rather than creating a separate custom iterator class. In that context, the similarities between the __iter__ implementation and the corresponding explicit __next__ implementation is a beneficial feature. I'm definitely coming around to the point of view that, even if we wouldn't design it the way it currently works given a blank slate, the alternative design doesn't provide sufficient benefit to justify the cost of changing the behaviour & getting people to retrain their brains. Cheers, Nick. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20141123/76b8009b/attachment.html>
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