Both yes and no. Let me illustrate...
Inclusion-exclusion is typically used to find the cardinality of a set A contain all combinatorial objects that avoid a substructure S (either that, or the complement of A).
Suppose you are at object $x \in A$ and the next object is $y \in A$. Whatever method you use for finding y from x would need to find the combinatorial trade T formed from the difference between y and x. The trade T will typically depend on the structure of x and y, that is, you will probably not be able to use the same trade T in going from most x' to y' later in the iterator.
For example, consider (0,1) sequences of length n without two consecutive 1s. Here's the list for n=3.
These can be counted using inclusion-exclusion. Notice that, no matter which order we choose to iterate in, the trade T that arises in going from 000 to abc will somehow contain the information of which of a,b,c are non-zero -- i.e. which numbers to toggle. This trade can clearly not be used everywhere in the iterator, although in some cases it could: e.g. if 000 -> 001 then the trade could be reused in going from 100 -> 101.
In some areas of combinatorics, such as Latin squares, we start off with one member L of the set A, then store a sequence of trades $t_1,t_2,\ldots$ (this can require much hard-disk space). We iterate through the Latin squares quickly by applying the trades in sequence, that is, $L \mapsto t_i L$ iteratively.
The problem therefore becomes finding a sequence of trades that are quite "small" (and therefore require less storage) -- e.g. in the binary sequences case, toggles only one or two bits.