On 15/05/2020 16:56, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:54 AM Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 10:46:25 -0400
David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote:
1. +1 itertools.zip_strict function
2. +1 zip.strict(*args)
3. +1 zip(*args, mode='strict') # mode='shortest' by default
4. +0 zip(*args, strict=True)
Mostly I agree with Steven on relative preference:
itertools.zip_strict() +1
zip.strict() +0.5
zip(mode='strict') +0
zip(strict=True) -0.5
For me:
* zip(strict=True) +1
* zip(mode='strict') -0
* itertools.zip_strict() -0.5
* zip.strict() -1 (but really, I'd like to make this -1e10)
Since we're posting:
itertools.zip_strict() +1
zip.strict() +0.1
zip(strict=True) -0.5
zip(mode='strict') -1
Well, if it's what all the cool kids are doing...
* itertools.zip_strict() +1
* zip.strict() +0
* zip(mode='strict') -0
* zip(strict=True) -1
The middle two would be weird if zip_longest doesn't get folded in
eventually, which might push them (more) negative.
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
_______________________________________________
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/VMJUFQMW2IGR5B73MKRJDPLSR72YROXB/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
