Lucas Hoffmann <l-m-h@web.de> writes: > > I don't see a reason to have python programmers handle "manual > iterators" or however you want to call the thing the C code does there. > So I would like to keep *some* simplified interface as well. > > It is very easy to turn this into a generator. But then I consider the > name a mismatch. If it is called "get_config_list" it should return a > list. I could add get_config_iterator or get_config_generator and turn > get_config_list into a wrapper: For starters I'd just create get_config_{iterator,generator}, which ever is a more pythonic name. As you point out below, it's easy to turn that into a list or a dictionary. > > The only problem one could see with this additional entry point is what > you said in id:87wp8kcbvg.fsf@tethera.net about the function > get_all_named_queries (quote below), namely that the names of the python > bindings diverge from the names of the C bindings. It's not so much the names diverging that I worry about as the functionality. The C library provides (effectively) a generator, so the bindings should too. d