On 11/13/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As my final word, I think this is a seriously bad idea, and as you're > not answering my challenge about duck typing I don't think you > understand your own proposal.
I think I do, though I can't tell the same about the reasons of your objections to it. In your previous reply you mentioned that I need to have a more technical argument to convince you, and that's why I chose to reply with the most technical argument, a proof of concept implementation that addresses your concerns about how to incorporate the itertools functions as methods. As for the duck typing, I mentioned already that nobody forces you to extend this type to make some class an iterator, as nobody forces you to extend dict or dictmixin to write a user-defined mapping. You may well start from scratch implementing just next(); if you don't plan to use "+", "*" or any of the itertools operations on this type, extending Iter is useless. If you do plan to provide these operations though, you may either write them from scratch every time, or extend Iter. I honestly fail to understand your current objections. Is my analogy with dictmixin flawed ? Would anything change if I named it "itermixin" instead of iter or Iter ? I'm ok with the idea being rejected, but at least I'd like to understand the reasons. George _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
