New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change method signature to return iterable
?
#49
Comments
I like the idea and thought about proposing that as well, there is one thing I wasn't sure about:
There is one drawback of Still, I think |
This sounds like it might invite problems? Why would you need generators for this? What's the advantage over arrays? Aren't containers basically always going to apply the entire set of factories and extensions all at once? |
Since this idea appears to invite problems, I am going to close this issue. No real reason was given for this suggestion. If you did have generators for some reason, since they are going to be consumed by the container in full anyway, you can simply convert them to arrays. I would imagine this is a very rare issue anyway, as generators are typically used for sequential data rather than sets/maps. If you disagree, please feel free to reopen and clarify the requirement. |
This is only a quick thought, maybe there would be some side-effects that I can not see right now.
Changing the return type of the two methods to
iterable
would ease the use of generators, for instance something like this:What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: