On 28 June 2017 at 05:30, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > On 6/27/2017 10:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> While I haven't been following this thread closely, I'd like to note >> that arguing for a "chain()" builtin has the virtue that would just be >> arguing for the promotion of the existing itertools.chain function >> into the builtin namespace. >> >> Such an approach has a lot to recommend it: >> >> 1. It has precedent, in that Python 3's map(), filter(), and zip(), >> are essentially Python 2's itertools.imap(), ifilter(), and izip() >> 2. There's no need for a naming or semantics debate, as we'd just be >> promoting an established standard library API into the builtin >> namespace > > > A counter-argument is that there are other itertools that deserve promotion, > by usage, even more. But we need to see comparisons from more that one > limited corpus.
Indeed. I don't recall *ever* using itertools.chain myself. I'd be interested in seeing some usage stats to support this proposal. As an example, I see 8 uses of itertools.chain in pip and its various vendored packages, as opposed to around 30 uses of map (plus however many list comprehensions are used in place of maps). On a very brief scan, it looks like the various other itertools are used less than chain, but with only 8 uses of chain, it's not really possible to read anything more into the relative frequencies. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
