On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 01:39:28PM +0300, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: > > > I'm writing from my phone now, cause I was dumb enough to try > list(count()) > > You have my sympathies -- I once, due to typo, accidentally ran > something like range(10**100) in Python 2. > > Oh, I think I've done something like that too, and there are definitely still opportunities in Python 3 to ask for the impossible. But what I did now, I did "on purpose". For a split second, I really wanted to know how bad it would be. But a few minutes later I had little interest left in that ;). Rebooting a computer definitely takes longer than restarting a Python process. > > > But should it be fixed in list or in count? > > Neither. There are too many other places this can break for it to be > effective to try to fix each one in place. > > To clarify, I was talking about allowing Ctrl-C to break it, which somebody had suggested. That would also help if the C-implemented iterable just takes a lot of time to generate the items. And for the record, I just tried >>> sum(itertools.count()) And as we could expect, it does not respect Ctrl-C either. ––Koos -- + Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
