"Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > I guess the real questions are[1]: > * How much does iter feel like a type? > * How closely are the itertools functions associated with iter? > > STeVe > > [1] There's also the question of how much you believe in OO tenets like > "functions closely associated with a type should be members of that type"...
I would answer positively for both: iter does feel like a type conceptually and (most, if not all) itertools would be suitable methods for such a type. Here I am referring to 'type' more as an interface (or protocol; i'm not sure of the difference) rather than a concrete class, so whether the result of iter is an iterator or a generator object is of little importance as long as it works as expected (that it, whether it makes calls to next() or __getitem__() becomes a hidden implementation detail). If iter was a type, it would also be neat to replace some itertool callables with special methods, as it has been mentioned in another thread (http://tinyurl.com/6mmmf), so that: iter(x)[a:b:c] := itertools.islice(iter(x),a,b,c) iter(x) + iter(y) := itertools.chain(iter(x), iter(y)) iter(x) * 3 := itertools.chain(* itertools.tee(iter(x), 3)) George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list