Tim Peters <t...@python.org> added the comment:
If you don't use the 'after` iterator, then of course you'll never see the values (if any) it would have yielded. How could it possibly be otherwise? By design and construction, the `before` iterator ends before yielding the first (if any) transitional element. As Raymond said at the start, the `takedowhile()` proposal appears much harder to use correctly, since there's no reasonably sane way to know that the last value it yields _is_ the transitional element (or, perhaps, that there was no transitional element, and the underlying iterable was just exhausted without finding one). If the proposal were instead for `takewhile_plus_one_more_if_any()`, then at least the ugly name would warn about the surprising intended behavior ;-) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue44571> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
