Arnaud Delobelle <arno...@googlemail.com> writes: > Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > > Whether the OP needs to create a generator, or just any iterable > > type, isn't clear. > > If it walks and quacks like a duck... Anyway it's not just an iterable > object, it's an iterator. I can't really imagine that there would be > some code which would be happy with generators but not with iterators > (as long as you can't send anything to them, which is always the case > with an empty generator).
I can't imagine that someone would want to create a generator that's always empty, but has some side-effect that is the *real* purpose for using the generator. Clearly, none of us should let our limited imaginations be the guide to what people actually want to do. -- \ “Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; | `\ those in philosophy only ridiculous.” —David Hume, _A Treatise | _o__) of Human Nature_, 1739 | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
