<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/20/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Guido van Rossum</b> <<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 7/20/06, Raymond Hettinger <<a href="mailto:rhettinger@ewtllc.com">rhettinger@ewtllc.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> >> Why is this a defect? Have we abandoned the notion of SeqIter<br>> >> automatically wrapping any object with __getitem__()?
<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Actually, the autowrapping was intended a backwards compatibility<br>> > measure.<br>> ><br>> > We should make a conscious decision whether we should make it a<br>
> > permanent feature or not.<br>><br>> It sure simplified writing extensions.<br>> And it provided a convenient guarantee that all sequences are iterable.<br>> I don't see a downside to keeping it.<br><br>
Well, it will also make mappings pseudo-iterable; in Py3k I plan to<br>completely get rid of the distinction between x[...] for mappings and<br>for sequences, which exist in C but not at the Python level.</blockquote><div>
<br>Woohoo!<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I'd like to hear from others whether the default iter fallback ought
<br>to stay or go.</blockquote><div><br>Eh, I have never had any direct need for it.<br></div><br>-Brett<br></div>