On 8/3/07, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/3/07, *Facundo Batista* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > 2007/8/3, Andrew Bennetts <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: > > > > > I don't really think there's much reason to make "iter()" > > work. As you say, > > > > What bad thing could happen if we make iter() work? If nothing, we > > should ask ourselves: which is the more intuitive behaviour to expect > > of iter()? To raise an exception or to return an empty iterator? > > > > I'm +0 for the latter. > > > > > > -1. I'm a heavy user of iterators on finite and infinite streams and, > > for me, iter() is an error that I do not want to paper over. The > > alternate logic implies, e.g ., len() should return 0. > > > -1 here too. iter() should have an argument just like sum() and len().
Amen. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
