pybind11
pybind11 copied to clipboard
pybind
pytypes: Add iterable_t<T>
Description
Resolves #1773 as an alternative / less disruptive approach Drawing from https://github.com/robotlocomotion/drake/pull/14898
Suggested changelog entry:
iterable_t<T> added as a simple pytype
Just commenting to say I'm working on something atm for which this would be useful :-)
Just commenting to say I'm working on something atm for which this would be useful :-)
This needs to be resurrected after the sweeping changes for clang-format and Python 2 drop. You could transfer the diffs to a new PR and work on it there.
This needs to be resurrected after the sweeping changes for clang-format and Python 2 drop. You could transfer the diffs to a new PR and work on it there.
It was luckily small enough w/ just a merge + conflict resolution. I think the review is still fine w/ merge. Let me know if you'd still like a new PR.
Aye - so you think it's best to not introduce the feature? Fine by me, just want to clarify some points.
The code seems to be dicy ("bad! For now,") and the gain seems really minute ("slightly too restrictive").
Too restrictive in what sense? Not an iterator, or shouldn't check types, or something else?
Aye - so you think it's best to not introduce the feature? Fine by me, just want to clarify some points.
The code seems to be dicy ("bad! For now,") and the gain seems really minute ("slightly too restrictive").
Too restrictive in what sense? Not an iterator, or shouldn't check types, or something else?
Sorry I wasn't clear, the "slightly too restrictive" quote is from here: https://github.com/pybind/pybind11/issues/1773
I.e. my interpretation was that even the original requester was thinking the current behavior is only "slightly too restrictive". (I agree.)
My cost/benefit assessment is just one vote! Yes, I'd say let's not add this, but if there are other opinions I'll reconsider. I'm just offering my current opinion.
Sounds good! I'm not too wed to this, but will await opinions, and close if we don't hear back for a bit (~month?)
@alexdewar If you're available, is this still useful as-is?