[Python-Dev] Re: Should the definition of an "(async) iterator" include __iter__?

2021年9月14日 21:29:42 -0700

If it helps, I have tons of code that tests for iterators using:
 iter(obj) is obj
That has been a documented requirement for the iterator protocol 
forever. Its in the PEP.
"A class that wants to be an iterator should implement two methods: a 
next() method that behaves as described above, and an __iter__() method 
that returns self."
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0234/
We have objects such that:
 iter(obj)
returns an iterator, but aren't themselves iterators. The most common 
example of that would be, I think, classes that define __iter__ as a 
generator method:
 class A:
 def __iter__(self):
 for x in range(10):
 yield x
Then we have actual iterators, like iter(A()). They define `__iter__` 
that returns self.
I don't know what I would call an object that only has __next__, 
apart from "broken" :-(
-- 
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/6FB5AT2IQENUSRZZT7G2CE3LDEDN2WNQ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to