[Python-Dev] Rationale behind lazy map/filter
Chris Jerdonek
chris.jerdonek at gmail.com
Tue Oct 13 13:44:02 EDT 2015
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Oct 13 13:44:02 EDT 2015
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Rationale behind lazy map/filter
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Rationale behind lazy map/filter
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> wrote: > "R. David Murray" <rdmurray at bitdance.com> writes: > >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:59:56 +0300, Stefan Mihaila >> <stefanmihaila91 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Maybe it's just python2 habits, but I assume I'm not the only one >>> carelessly thinking that "iterating over an input a second time will >>> result in the same thing as the first time (or raise an error)". >> >> This is the way iterators have always worked. > > It does raise the question though of what working code it would actually > break to have "exhausted" iterators raise an error if you try to iterate > them again rather than silently yield no items. What about cases where not all of the elements of the iterator are known at the outset? For example, you might have a collection of pending tasks that you periodically loop through and process. Changing the behavior would result in an error when checking for more tasks instead of no tasks. --Chris
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Rationale behind lazy map/filter
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Rationale behind lazy map/filter
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list