On Oct 14, 10:53 am, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> writes: > > In general, the only way to test if a generator is empty is to try to > > consume an item. (It's possible to write an iterator that consumes an > > item and caches it to be returned on the next next(), and whose > > boolean status indicates if there's an item left. ...) > > I remember thinking that Python would be better off if all generators > automatically cached an item, so you could test for emptiness, look > ahead at the next item without consuming it, etc. This might have been > a good change to make in Python 3.0 (it would have broken compatibility > with 2.x) but it's too late now.
Since the generator's behavior can depend on when it was invoked, no I don't think this is a good idea. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
