Tal Einat <taleinat+pyt...@gmail.com> added the comment:
It seems to me that this would follow the same argument as in issue #18111: The real issue is that there's no good way to check if an arbitrary iterable is empty, unlike with sequences. Currently, callers need to wrap with try/except to handle empty iterators properly, or do non-trivial iterator "magic" to check whether the iterator is empty before passing it in. I've tried think of other solutions, such as a generic wrapper for such functions or a helper to check whether an iterable is empty, and they all turn out to be very clunky to use and un-Pythonic. Since we provide first-class support for iterators, and many builtins return iterators, giving the tools to handle the case where they are empty elegantly and simply seems prudent. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39094> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
