Created on 2009-04-12 00:58 by ncoghlan, last changed 2010-10-29 10:07 by admin.
| Messages (3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg85883 - (view) | Author: Nick Coghlan (ncoghlan) *  |
Date: 2009-04-12 00:58 | |
The language reference is currently silent as to whether or not an iterator's next() method is looked up on every pass around a for loop, or whether it is OK for an implementation to look the method up once at the start of the loop, cache the result and call it again each time around the loop without doing the lookup again. The language reference should require implementations to follow CPython's behaviour in this respect: the method should be looked up again on each pass around the loop. As per this email on python-ideas: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-April/004083.html |
|||
| msg86104 - (view) | Author: Terry J. Reedy (terry.reedy) * |
Date: 2009-04-18 06:55 | |
I was surprised when this came up with another issue. Why does CPython behave that way? Accident or justified decision? |
|||
| msg86113 - (view) | Author: Nick Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2009-04-18 11:33 | |
Guido didn't actually say whether or not this was originally just an implementation accident or a deliberate design choice - he just indicated that this was a case where caching the bound method should be disallowed because it could change the semantics of existing programs. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-10-29 10:07:21 | admin | set | assignee: georg.brandl -> docs@python |
| 2009-04-18 11:33:19 | ncoghlan | set | messages: + msg86113 |
| 2009-04-18 06:55:12 | terry.reedy | set | nosy:
+ terry.reedy messages: + msg86104 |
| 2009-04-12 00:58:26 | ncoghlan | create | |