On 3/3/06, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this is a really good point. next() is supposed to get used, by coders, in regular code - so it shouldn't be __next__. I can understand the desire for both forms, although that seems it would clutter things up unnecessarily - particularly if the two do the same thing.
Anna
[Aahz]
> * As a writer/teacher, I want to be able to say, "All Python special
> methods have leading and trailing double-underscore." Period, end of
> story.
When teaching your classes, do you sense an aversion to using double underscore
methods in regular code? I sense an implied message that these methods are not
intended to be called directly (i.e. the discomfort of typing x.__setitem__(k,v)
serves as a cue to write x[k]=v instead; likewise, x.__int__() pushes towards
int(x) instead).
If so, then that is a good reason to leave it.next() as-is. Unlike __setitem__
or __int__, the next() method is intended to be called directly in normal code.
Of course, for-loops are the most common case and it makes no difference there;
however, in the rest of the cases where the iterator is accessed directly, the
current naming is clean, readable, and doesn't provide an aversive cue.
The double underscore convention is appropriate where the method is always
invoked magically in normal code and not called directly. The next() method is
differenct because it is a mixed case, sometimes called magically and sometimes
called directly. In the latter case, the name is highly visible and therefore
should not have double underscores.
I suspect that those who feel differently are ones who usually avoid calling
next() directly. That's okay, but we shouldn't muck-up the naming for the rest
of us who often do have a need to use next().
This is doubly important because we're now expanding the protocol to include
send() and throw(). Adding underscores around them too will only make those
methods look harder to use than they actually are. Don't underestimate the
psychological revulsion to calling code filled with piles of double underscores.
I think this is a really good point. next() is supposed to get used, by coders, in regular code - so it shouldn't be __next__. I can understand the desire for both forms, although that seems it would clutter things up unnecessarily - particularly if the two do the same thing.
Anna
_______________________________________________ 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
