On Jul 30, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> xrange objects might be lazily generated, but
> they're also sequence types: you can get their length, and you can index
> them. (However you can't slice them.) Iterators are not sequence types:
> they aren't indexable and you can't get their length.
ah! now that makes sense. I guess I never check their length, or index them,
and only use them like generators. :)
thanks for the clarification!
> It isn't like the Python developers are sitting around bored, looking for
> things to do. They are overworked with far too much to do and not enough
> manpower or time to do it. There are a huge number of much more important
> bug fixes and features that haven't been dealt with for them to bother with
> something like this.
Now, that seems a little harsh, and nothing that I was intending. I figured
(before learning about getting its length and indexing) that if the xrange
object was basically a pre-generator hack, that it would make sense from a
code-clarity point of view to reimplement them as generators -- it would gave
made the developer's life easier. Now that I realize that xrange has different
functionality than a generator (which was the point of my question...just
curious *what* different functionality) it clearly doesn't make sense to
implement them as generators. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that the
developers are lazy, or bored!
bb
>
>
>
> --
> Steven
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
Brian Blais
bbl...@bryant.edu
http://web.bryant.edu/~bblais
http://bblais.blogspot.com/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
