Tim Delaney wrote:
There aren't many builtins that have magic names, and I don't think this
should be one of them - it has obvious uses other than as an
implementation detail.
I think there's some confusion here. As I understood the
suggestion, __next__ would be the Python name of the method
corresponding to the tp_next typeslot, analogously with
__len__, __iter__, etc.
There would be a builtin function next(obj) which would
invoke obj.__next__(), for use by Python code. For loops
wouldn't use it, though; they would continue to call the
tp_next typeslot directly.
Paul Moore wrote:
PS The first person to replace builtin __next__ in order to implement
a "next hook" of some sort, gets shot :-)
I think he meant next(), not __next__. And it wouldn't
work anyway, since as I mentioned above, C code would
bypass next() and call the typeslot directly.
I'm +1 on moving towards __next__, BTW. IMO, that's the
WISHBDITFP. :-)
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +--------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
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
