That (b) certainly seems like the sensible option to me. My second
choice would be d.
A nice thing about c is that it leaves open the possibility of lazy
evaluation (zip as much of the lists as you can, leaving open the
possibility of picking up the process later). But I still prefer b.
Maybe there could be separate "lazy zip" (lzip?).
--- Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What should zip do given 1..3 and 1..6?
>
> (a) 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6
> (b) 1 1 2 2 3 3 undef 4 undef 5 undef 6
> (c) 1 1 2 2 3 3
> (d) fail
>
> I'd want c, mostly because of code like
>
> for @foo Y 0... -> $foo, $i { ... }
>
> Pugs currently does b.
>
>
> Juerd
> --
> http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
> http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
> http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
>
===
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Without the requirement of mathematical aesthetics a great many discoveries
would not have been made."
-- Albert Einstein
