On 6/27/07, Andy Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 26, 10:03 am, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Map doesn't work on generators or iterators because they're not part > > > of the common lisp spec, but if someone implemented them as a library, > > > said library could easily include a map that handled them as well. > > > > Right, more scattered special purpose kludges instead of a powerful > > uniform interface. > > Huh? The interface could continue to be (map ...). > > Python's for statement relies on the fact that python is mostly object > oriented and many of the predefined types have an iterator interface. > Lisp lists and vectors currently aren't objects and very few of the > predefined types have an iterator interface. > > It's easy enough to get around the lack of objectness and add the > equivalent of an iterator iterface, in either language. The fact that > lisp folks haven't bothered suggests that this isn't a big enough > issue. >
Is this where I get to call Lispers Blub programmers, because they can't see the clear benefit to a generic iteration interface? > The difference is that lisp users can easily define python-like for > while python folks have to wait for the implementation. > Yes, but Python already has it (so the wait time is 0), and the Lisp user doesn't. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list