Le 12 juin 2013 à 18:14, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On 12 June 2013 14:12, Claude Pache <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> On the other hand, I see a small advantage of the "weird" requirement for >> iterators to be iterables themselves: It allows to discriminate between true >> iterators and merely "nextable" objects. > > And in the spirit of "duck typing", why would you want to do that? Just so that an error is surely thrown in case I feed a for/of loop with a non-iter{ator|able}. In the spirit of duck-typing, I consider that "having an `@@iterator` method" is a more robust check than "having an `@@iterator` or a `next` method". Not a big deal, however. > And > how do you want to treat an iterable with a 'next' method, but whose > @@iterator method does not return 'this'? Is that a "true" iterator? > (The fact that such a beast can even exist shows how fuzzy those > notions are.) You're right, but I don't expect to encounter such a beast often. Concretely, they are buggy objects that would not receive any special treatment (they are iterable whenever an `@@iterator` method is expected, and they are iterated whenever a `next` method is required). –Claude > > /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
