How do you refer to an iterator in docs?
Cameron Simpson
cs at zip.com.au
Thu Apr 19 18:16:43 EDT 2012
On 19Apr2012 18:07, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
| On 4/19/2012 5:32 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
| > On 19Apr2012 14:32, Terry Reedy<tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
| > | On 4/19/2012 11:51 AM, Jacob MacDonald wrote:
| > |> When I talk about an iterable, I say "iterable".
| > |
| > | Ditto.
| >
| > I used to, but find myself saying "sequence" these days. It reads
| > better, but is it the same thing?
|
| A Python 'sequence' is a collection that has a length and can be indexed
| by counts 0, 1, ... . In other words, len(s) and s[n] work. This
| definition is in the library manual somewhere.
I think I've failed to find this definition in the past, hence my
misuse. I'll go back to saying "iterable", as that is usually what I
intend.
On the same topic, when I write a generator my docstring tends to come
in one of two forms:
foo() yields values ...
or
foo() returns an iterable ...
I find the first clumsy, but tend not to think of generators as "returning"
an iterable as a single action. But of course they do, don't
they: the generator instance itself, since I can say "x = foo()" and
then iterate over "x".
So is the second docstring style better/preferred/more common?
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
The trouble with the rat-race is, even if you win, you're still a rat.
- James Youngman <JYoungman at vggas.com>
More information about the Python-list
mailing list