[Python-checkins] CVS: python/nondist/peps pep-0234.txt,1.5,1.6

2001年4月26日 14:50:12 -0700

Update of /cvsroot/python/python/nondist/peps
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv21542
Modified Files:
	pep-0234.txt 
Log Message:
Added some more discussion.
Index: pep-0234.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/python/python/nondist/peps/pep-0234.txt,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -C2 -r1.5 -r1.6
*** pep-0234.txt	2001年04月26日 13:39:59	1.5
--- pep-0234.txt	2001年04月26日 21:50:09	1.6
***************
*** 109,113 ****
 will have a hard time differentiating between user-level protocols
 and interpreter-level ones. AFAIK, .next() would be the first
! low-level API not using this convention."

--- 109,116 ----
 will have a hard time differentiating between user-level protocols
 and interpreter-level ones. AFAIK, .next() would be the first
! low-level API not using this convention." My (BDFL's) response:
! there are other important protocols with a user-level name
! (e.g. keys()), and I don't see the importance of this particular
! rule.

***************
*** 148,152 ****
 implement __iter__() returning itself.

! There is some controversy here:

 - The name iter() is an abbreviation. Alternatives proposed
--- 151,155 ----
 implement __iter__() returning itself.

! Discussion:

 - The name iter() is an abbreviation. Alternatives proposed
***************
*** 157,160 ****
--- 160,170 ----
 with an sentinel value) is somewhat ugly. I haven't seen a
 better name for the second operation though.
+ 
+ - It was originally proposed that rather than having a next()
+ method, an iterator object should simply be callable. This was
+ rejected in favor of an explicit next() method. The reason is
+ clarity: if you don't know the code very well, "x = s()" does
+ not give a hint about what it does; but "x = s.next()" is pretty
+ clear.