Greg Ewing wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> Code that
>> uses next() is more understandable, friendly, and readable without the
>> walls of underscores.
>
> There wouldn't be any walls of underscores, because
>
> y = x.next()
>
> would become
>
> y = next(x)
>
> The only time you would need to write underscores is
> when defining a __next__ method. That would be no worse
> than defining an __init__ or any other special method,
> and has the advantage that it clearly marks the method
> as being special.
I wouldn't mind seeing one of the early ideas from PEP 340 being resurrected
some day, such that the signature for the special method was "__next__(self,
input)" and for the builtin "next(iterator, input=None)"
That would go hand in hand with the idea of allowing the continue statement to
accept an argument though.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
