These negative votes surprise me.
Given that it's clear that a generic strict-mode zip is non-trivial to
write, and that there is significant demand for it, are people saying
"+0 Python would not be a better programming environment if
itertools.zip_strict() were adopted," and "-1 Python would be a worse
programming environment if zip.strict() were adopted"?
I can see why folks would say the latter about zip.strict(), but even
though I really dislike the mode switches, I'm still positive about
adding them if one of them ranks highest among those who care. I'm
not going to give them negative votes, they don't make Python worse.
I don't mind hyperbole ("I'm +1000 on this feature!" or "-10 on the
worst proposal I've seen since <potentially controversial example
removed>!") But I would like it if "0" meant "indifferent", "+1"
meant "no-brainer, add it", and "-1" meant "no-brainer, just don't".
FWIW,
+1 itertools.zip_strict(*iterables)
+0.5 zip(*iterables, mode) # mode is 3-way, default "shortest"
+0.4 zip(*iterables, strict) # strict is boolean, default False
+0 zip.strict(*iterables)
_______________________________________________
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/DLHIE5DOI5G3IH7OEK7RDW2K37DEQ7VB/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
