<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Can I suggest that next() and __next__() be dropped entirely and that iterators just be made callable.
Can you do that without making the call a regular, slow call each time? Or at least without adding a lookup of '__call__' each time? For generators, I could imagine renaming .next to .__call__, but in general, how would you mark something as an iterator (versus non-iterator iterable or anything else) without .next (or the proposed .__next__), since that is the very thing that now marks it (along with .__iter__) as an iterator. In other words, what would a user-defined iterator class look like? If you say .__call__ along with .__iter__, then you are stipulating that non-iterator iterables cannot be callable themselves. I have no idea it this would break code. | The current approach seems to make people think there is something wrong with using an iterator directly (inside of in a for-loop or function that consumes an iterator. No me. So 'some people' rather than 'people'. How many? Learning about method binding is fairly important. Would changing .next to .__call__ really solve whatever problem you think there is? | >>> ### What we do now | >>> import itertools | >>> count = itertools.count(1).next | >>> count() | 1 | >>> count() | 2 | | | >>> ### What would be nice But, I believe slower, due to the repeated .__call__ method name lookup | >>> import itertools | >>> cnt = itertools.count(1) | >>> cnt() | 1 | >>> cnt() | 2 so I expect the sophisticated user, if expecting to call cnt perhaps millions of times, would write cnt = itertools.count(1).__call__ # or whatever Bound .next methods are perhaps unique in potentially massive reuse. Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
