2 Oct
2015
2 Oct
'15
11:49 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 05:13:39AM +0300, Akira Li wrote:
I still don't see a practical need to avoid the word "iterable" unless new requirements (in addition to being non-iterator) are present.
I don't think anyone has suggested that we should avoid the word iterable. At most, some have suggested that we don't have a good word for those iterables which are not iterators. -- Steve