On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Chris Barker firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Chris Angelico email@example.com wrote:
I've done my "explain it twice, then shut up" on this subject, so I'll just point you to the list archive, where it's been stated clearly that generators are like __iter__, not like __next__. Please, could you respond to previously-given explanations, rather than simply restating that generators should be like __next__?
I'm not sure if I've responded or not to previously given explanations -- but you're right, it's time for me to shut up having made my point, too.
Well, there is probably more to be said about this - along the lines of *why* generators ought to be more like iterators. (They're iterables, not iterators.) It's just that we seem to be rehashing the same arguments - or maybe that's just my impression, as there's been discussion on three different channels (-ideas, -dev, and the issue tracker - mercifully very little on the latter).