[Python-ideas] Consider making enumerate a sequence if its argument is a sequence

[Terry Reedy]

On 9/30/2015 10:31 PM, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2015, at 19:04, Akira Li <4kir4.1i at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Akira Li <4kir4.1i at gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
>>>> <python-ideas at python.org> writes:
>>>> ...
>>>>> (The fact that we don't have a term for "non-iterator iterable", and
>>>>
>>>> All iterators are iterable but some iterables are not iterators.
>>>>
>>>> If your code accepts only iterators then use the term *iterator*.
>>>> Otherwise the term *iterable* could be used.
>>>>
>>>> It is misleading to use *iterable* if your code only accepts iterators.
>>>>
>>>> If an iterable is an iterator; It is called *iterator*. The term
>>>> *iterable* implies that some instances are not iterators.
>>>
>>> There are three (well, three and a half) kinds of code that consume
>>> iterables, how would you describe each simply?
>>>
>>> 1. Does not call iter, simply calls next. Therefore cannot consume a
>>>    non-iterator iterable.
>> iterator
>>
>>> 2. Calls iter, but can accept an iterator (e.g. only goes through it
>>>    once)
>> iterable
>>
>>> 3. Cannot accept an iterator (goes through it twice, or permanently
>>>    stores a reference to it, etc)
>> neither

re-iterable (with implication of same sequence of yields)
I have used this for years on python list and do not think I am unique.

>> *iterable* is an object that you can pass to iter() to get *iterator*.
>> An iterable does not guarantee that it yields the same items twice.
>
> We don't have any way to simply describe this thing.

Depends of the 'we'.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy