Why are "broken iterators" broken?
fredrik at pythonware.com
Sun Sep 21 17:27:11 CEST 2008
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> According to the Python docs, once an iterator raises StopIteration, it
> should continue to raise StopIteration forever. Iterators that fail to
> behave in this fashion are deemed to be "broken":
> I don't understand the reasoning behind this. As I understand it, an
> iterator is something like a stream. There's no constraint that once a
> stream is empty it must remain empty forever.
it's a design guideline, not an absolute rule.
but I disagree that an iterator is "something like a stream". it's
rather "something like a pointer or an index", that is, an object that
helps you iterate over all members in a collection.
More information about the Python-list