Markus Wallerberger <markus.wallerber...@tuwien.ac.at> added the comment:
> To a person well versed in recursion and in generator chains it makes sense > but not so much for anyone else. There I pretty much fundamentally disagree. I find the version in the docs much more magical in the sense that it builds up "laterally", i.e., level-by-level, rather than element-by-element. Also, I think from a functional programming perspective, which, let's face it, is what these iteration/generator tools are really modelling, a recursive version is much more natural. It also generalizes nicely to other problems which people may be having -- so it has the added benefit of explaining the code and teaching people useful patterns. Take the itertools.permutation as an example: writing that as it was in the reference implementation the code is IMHO pretty opaque and hard to reason about. Write it in a recursive style and both its working and correctness is immediately obvious. > Plus it is hard to step through by hand to see what it is doing. This I agree with. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain the rejection. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue46379> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
