On 2/28/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Ewing wrote: > > Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > >> I wouldn't mind seeing one of the early ideas from PEP 340 being > >> resurrected some day, such that the signature for the special method > >> was "__next__(self, input)" and for the builtin "next(iterator, > >> input=None)" > > > > Aren't we getting an argument to next() anyway? > > Or was that idea dropped? > > PEP 342 opted to extend the generator API instead (using "send") and leave the > iterator protocol alone for the time being.
One of the main reasons for this was the backwards compatibility problems at the C level. The C implementation doesn't take an argument. Adding an argument would cause all sorts of code breakage and possible segfaults (if there's 3rd party code calling tp_next for example). In 3.0 we could fix this. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
