Following up on a recent c.l.py thread
(http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/42818717b400bcd4/#),
I'd like to get an idea from python-dev folks on how much of a chance
is there for a builtin iterator type. Although there might be a slight
possibility to make this propos
Hm. Without knowing much of the background, this appears to be a
worrysome trend away from duck typing. Why would I have to inherit
from a standard class just so that I can implement next()? What's the
advantage of the proposed change? Are you going to propose similar
changes for all standard de-fa
> this appears to be a worrysome trend away from duck typing
Duck typing is a seriously bad idea, forced on Python by the now
obsolete split between built-in types and user-defined types.
> Are you going to propose similar
> changes for all standard de-facto interfaces, like sequences,
> mappings
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:51:29 PST, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> this appears to be a worrysome trend away from duck typing
>
>Duck typing is a seriously bad idea, forced on Python by the now
>obsolete split between built-in types and user-defined types.
Wow. Just wow.
Anyway, the pr
On 11/13/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm. Without knowing much of the background, this appears to be a
> worrysome trend away from duck typing. Why would I have to inherit
> from a standard class just so that I can implement next()? What's the
> advantage of the proposed chang
On 11/13/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Adding back python-3000 -- I'm not going to have private conversations]
Sorry, I accidentally hit reply instead of reply-all; I realized it a
minute later and I sent a cc to the list but it hasn't appeared yet..
strange.
> On 11/13/06,
[Adding back python-3000 -- I'm not going to have private conversations]
On 11/13/06, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/13/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hm. Without knowing much of the background, this appears to be a
> > worrysome trend away from duck typing
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 01:44:10PM -0500, George Sakkis wrote:
> As a proof of concept, I provide below a sample implementation of how
> I imagine this type to work (also posted in the original c.l.py.
> thread):
>
> from itertools import chain, tee, islice
>
> import __builtin__
> _builtin_iter =
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.
On 11/13/06, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/13/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [Adding back pyt
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
ob
George Sakkis gmail.com> writes:
...
> 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 ne
On 11/13/06, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 thi
On 11/13/06, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tend to think __getitem__ on base iter is a rather bad idea due to the
> fact it implies the underlying iter is a mapping; it's not.
Only mappings define __getitem__ ?!? Now that's a new one.
> Additionally... islice *does* have issues when
On 14 Nov 2006, at 4:26 AM, George Sakkis 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
On 11/14/06, Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 2006, at 4:26 AM, George Sakkis 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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
