Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> In the case of iter(collection), I prefer the current wording because the
> target object need not support __iter__, it is sufficient
> to supply a sequential __getitem__ method.
Seems to me that should be included in the definition of
an iterable -- i.e. anything for
Raymond Hettinger schrieb:
> The docs do make a distinction and generally follow the definitions given in
> the glossary for the tuturial.
>
> In the case of iter(collection), I prefer the current wording because the
> target object need not support __iter__, it is sufficient to supply a
> sequent
2007/7/25, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yep, looks like that did the trick. Facundo, a similar change may help
> with the GSoC project you're mentoring (the new smtplib tests failed on
> at least one of the buildbots).
Yes! Alan is already working in this (he sent me today a patch, :).
Re
At 08:29 PM 7/25/2007 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > At 12:16 AM 7/25/2007 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> I've changed the behaviour in r56520 to simply leave the alterations to
> >> sys in place when the function terminates. While this is a definite
> >> change to the inter
The docs do make a distinction and generally follow the definitions given in
the glossary for the tuturial.
In the case of iter(collection), I prefer the current wording because the
target object need not support __iter__, it is sufficient
to supply a sequential __getitem__ method.
Raymond
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Andrew Bennetts wrote:
>> Or use port 0 to let the operating system pick a free port:
>>
>> >>> import socket
>> >>> s = socket.socket()
>> >>> s.bind(("127.0.0.1", 0))
>> >>> s.getsockname()
>> ('127.0.0.1', 42669)
>>
>> -Andrew.
>
> I've changed test_url
Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> Facundo Batista wrote:
>> 2007/7/24, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Maybe the tests should be changed to use a not-so-standard port.
>
> Or use port 0 to let the operating system pick a free port:
>
> >>> import socket
> >>> s = socket.socket()
> >>> s.b
Calvin Spealman wrote:
> This might indicate that it is using "collection" where I would say
> "iterable". Also, the same docstring makes mention of something being
> an iterator _or_ a sequence, so I also should bring up that it may be
> antiquated, yes?
http://docs.python.org/dev/lib/typeiter.ht
I got into a discussion about this, which made me think it would make
sense to formalize a distinction between "iterable" and "iterator". To
nearly any python developer I talk with, we can define them as:
iterable - An object which can be passed to the built-in iter()
function, which returns an it
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 12:16 AM 7/25/2007 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> I've changed the behaviour in r56520 to simply leave the alterations to
>> sys in place when the function terminates. While this is a definite
>> change to the interface (and hence not a candidate for direct
>> backporting)
10 matches
Mail list logo