"Josiah Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Christos Georgiou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [snip] >> issue, but please understand this is not a question for help to change >> the >> algorithm (this has been done already), so it's not a question of c.l.py. >> It's a matter of discrepancy. > [snip] > > [snip Josiah's wordy "it's intentional and not a bug" in the form of a > suggestion > for a change of algorithm] Like I said, this wasn't a c.l.py question, even if you thought it deserved a c.l.py answer. In any case, you answered my question, and thank you. It not being a bug suits me just fine. Allow me to make sure we talk about the same thing here, though: both the example code I provided and the original one do modify the iterable *only* between the following A and B points in time: Point A: itertools.chain calls iter() on the iterable. (Appending to the iterable (list, deque) occur here, and only here.) Point B: itertools.chain starts calling iterable.next(). This is a different case from the one mentioned in the post by Raymond, and that is why I asked. For example, if itertools.chain called iter() on its arguments when actually needing to iterate over them instead of at the beginning, the code would work. But I really, really don't mind whatever the function, as long as it's by design, and that's the reason I didn't submit a bug in the tracker. That's all. I won't (and never intended) to defend any algorithms. _______________________________________________ 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
