On 11/13/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/13/06, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > The flaw is that you're creating two categories of iterators: those > that support the various methods you're adding, and those that don't. > This means that the itertools module can't be discarded, because it is > still needed to support those operations for the iterators that don't > have them natively. Thus, you're introducing two ways of doing the > same thing -- using itertools (works for all iterators) or using the > methods (only works for iterators that inherit from your base class).
Understood. Any _technical_ reasons then why shouldn't all iterators inherit from it, or "duck typing is The Right Way" should be taken as an axiom ? Why do we somehow _need_ itertools when we don't need sequencetools, mappingtools, etc ? What's so special about the iterator protocol ? 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
