Brandt Bucher writes: > Still agreed. But I think they would be *better* served by the > proposed keyword argument. > > This whole sub-thread of discussion has left me very confused. Was > anything unclear in the PEP's phrasing here?
I thought it was quite clear. Those of us who disagree simply disagree. We prefer to provide it as a separate function. Just move on, please; you're not going to convince us, and we're not going to convince you. Leave it to the PEP Delegate or Steering Council. > I wouldn't confuse "can" and "should" here. You do exactly that in arguing for your preferred design, though. We could implement the strictness test with an argument to the zip builtin function, but I don't think we should. I still can't think of a concrete use case for it from my own experience. Of course I believe concrete use cases exist, but that introspection makes me suspicious of the claim that this should be a builtin feature, with what is to my taste an ugly API. Again, I don't expect to convince you, and you shouldn't expect to convince me, at least not without more concrete and persuasive use cases than I've seen so far. Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/6NQZIDVMGPXA5QJWTKWJFZUUUAYQAOH4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
