Guido: > It's still an iterator, since it duck-types in most cases where an iterator > is required (notably "for", which is the primary use case for the iteration > protocols -- it's in the first sentence of PEP 234's abstract).
D'Aprano: > I don't think it duck-types as an iterator. Here's an example: > > class A: > def __init__(self): self.items = [1, 2, 3] > def __next__(self): > try: return self.items.pop() > except IndexError: raise StopIteration > > >>> for item in A(): pass > ... > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> > TypeError: 'A' object is not iterable Guido: > Yes, we all understand that. The reason I invoked "duck typing" is that as > long as you don't use the iterator in a situation where iter() is called > on it, it works fine. I'm confused. - a "broken" iterator should be usable in `for`; - `A` is a broken iterator; but - `A()` is not usable in `for`. What am I missing? -- ~Ethan~ _______________________________________________ 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/ZMDWM7ICFLD5R7URT2ME4WNYBVQZKNUT/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/