Shane Holloway (IEEE) wrote:
> It might actually be workable in the transaction scenario, as well as
> others. I'm not sure if I love or hate the idea though.
Given that this is officially a violation of the iterator protocol. . . (check
the docs for well-behaved iterators)
> Another thing. In the specification of the Anonymous Block function, is
> there a reason that "itr = EXPR1" instead of "itr = iter(EXPR1)"? It
> seems to be a dis-symmetry with the 'for' loop specification.
Indeed - and a deliberate one, at least partly to discourage caching of block
iterators.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
_______________________________________________
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
