On 3/24/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brett Cannon wrote: > > On 3/23/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> (Off-topic: maybe we can drop the fall-back behavior > >> of iter() if __iter__ isn't found?) > > > > I say yes. Iterators will be common enough that objects that want the > > support should just directly support it. > > Hmm, I'd expect the typical generator used for this to be a fair bit slower > than the current custom sequence iterator:
But you wouldn't do that. You'd just rebuke the author of the uniterable sequence type for not getting with the program after 7 years. Some folks (not me) would like to make this a feature and remove the __iter__ method on strings... -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
