"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/5/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > because [...] 2) it renames a protocol method, making it > > potentially difficult and/or buggy to write forward or backward > > compatible code, [...] > > Did you see my slides and/or video of my talk about Py3k yet? This > change can be carried out automatically.
I read the slides. However, I have written methods named 'next' which have *nothing* to do with the iterator protocol. I probably should have written them as something like 'get_next' so as not to confuse later readers, but the lack of an __iter__, specific documentation about what .next() means, and the context in which it was written, read much better with .next() than .get_next(), or any one of the handful of other names (and alternate naming semantics) I considered at the time. Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps, but I think there's a valid use case for calling "next" > explicitly, and I would really hate for that to be spelled > "it.__next__()". I agree, which is one of the reasons why I personally prefer the status-quo: it.next() . It works. Has always worked. And the 2to3 translator won't get confused by non-iterator-based .next() methods (which I'm not claiming are common, merely that they exist). - Josiah _______________________________________________ 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
