On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 7:10:03 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > And of course, from a comp science theoretic perspective, > generators are a kind of subroutine, not a kind of type.
You just showed Marko a few posts back, that A generator is a special case of an iterator. And you wrote the iterator with 'class'. And from python 2.2(?) classes are types. So I dont know what "comp science theoretic perspective" you are describing... From mine: The generator def gen(): yield 1 yield 2 is much closer to the list (ie data) [1,2] than to say def foo(): print 1 print 2 The only difference is that the list memoizes the data whereas the generator doesn't. CLU perspective: The iterator for a collection of complex_numbers can be used interchangeably with that for an array of integers from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLU_%28programming_language%29 [Note: CLU-iterator ≡ python-generator] Haskell perspective: Lists are by default lazy and memoized. IOW in Haskell: List ≡ Lazy list ≡ python generator + memoization Scheme perspective: Programmer can choose between normal and lazy lists. Lazy lists are just normal lists + delay/force where delay x ≡ lambda: x force x ≡ x() ====================== Anyways... Yes 15 years are past. I dont expect the def can be revoked now. [As far as I am concerned its a minor wart] But the mess around the docs can certainly be cleaned up. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
