On 04/05/17 01:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 12:13:25AM +0100, Erik wrote:
I had a use-case where splitting an iterable into a sequence of
same-sized chunks efficiently improved the performance of my code
[...]
So I didn't propose it. I have no idea now what I spent my saved hours
doing, but I imagine that it was fun
Summary: I didn't present the argument because I'm not a masochist
I'm not sure what the point of that anecdote was, unless it was "I wrote
some useful code, and you missed out".
Then you have misunderstood me. Paul suggested that my use-case
(chunking could be faster) was perhaps enough to propose that my patch
may be considered. I responded with historical/empirical evidence that
perhaps that would actually not be the case.
I was responding, honestly, to the questions raised by Paul's email.
Your comments come across as a passive-aggressive chastisment of the
core devs and the Python-Ideas community for being too quick to reject
useful code: we missed out on something good, because you don't have the
time or energy to deal with our negativity and knee-jerk rejection of
everything good. That's the way your series of posts come across to me.
I apologise if my words or my turn of phrase do not appeal to you. I am
trying to be constructive with everything I post.
If you choose to interpret my messages in a different way then I'm not
sure what I can do about that.
Back to the important stuff though:
- you could have offered it to the moreitertools project;
A more efficient version of moreitertools.chunked() is what we're
talking about.
- you could have published it on PyPy;
Does PyPy support C extension modules? If so, that's a possibility.
- you could have proposed it on Python-Ideas with an explicit statement
I may well do that - my current patch (because of when I did it) is
against a Py2 codebase, but I could port it to Py3. I still have a
nagging doubt that I'd be wasting my time though ;)
If
you care so little that you can't be bothered even to propose it, why do
you care if it is rejected?
You are mistaking not caring enough about the functionality with not
caring enough to enter into an argument about including that
functionality ...
I didn't propose it at the time because of the reasons I mentioned. But
when I saw something being discussed yet again that I had a general
solution for already written I thought I mention it in case it was
useful. As I said, I'm _trying_ to be constructive.
E.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
