From: Martin DeMello <martindemello@...>
Date: 2002-11-20T05:50:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Thoughts on generators

Nat Pryce <nat.pryce@b13media.com> wrote:
> If the behaviour of SimpleGenerator.new(a) depends on the type of a --
> e.g. is polymorphic with respect to a -- then it should really be a
> method defined by a.
> 
> E.g. your example would be reformulated as:
> 
>    g = a.generator
>    i = g.next

Right you are. Something like

class Range
  def generator
    RangeGenerator.new(self)
  end
end

for each class, or is there a better way to do it? One problem though is
that this doesn't let us create generators for arbitrary classes
(frinstance, anything that supports self[int] could yield a generator),
but I could keep SimpleGenerator.new around as well. 

martin