On Oct 27, 10:23 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
> I do not think everyone else should suffer substantial increase in space > and run time to avoid surprising you. What substantial increase? There's already a check that winds up raising an exception. Just make it empty an iterator instead. > > It violates the principle of least surprise > > for ctypes to do what is most efficient in 99.9% of uses? It doesn't work at all with an iterator, so it's most efficient 100% of the time now. How do you know how many people would use iterators if it worked? > > It could, but at some cost. Remember, people use ctypes for efficiency, yes, you just made my argument for me. Thank you. It is incredibly inefficient to have to create a temp array. > so the temp array path would have to be conditional. I don't understand this at all. Right now, it just throws up its hands and says "I don't work with iterators." Why would it be a problem to change this? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list