Guido van Rossum wrote:
Is this problem really important enough that it requires dedicated syntax? Isn't the itertools-based solution good enough?
Well, it works, but it feels very clumsy. It's annoying to have to specify the number of items in two places. Also, it seems perverse to have to tell Python to do *more* stuff to mitigate the effects of stuff it does that you didn't want it to do in the first place. Like I said, I'm actually surprised that this doesn't already work. To me it feels more like filling in a piece of functionality that was overlooked, rather than adding a new feature. Filling in a pothole in the road rather than bulding a new piece of road. (Pushing the road analogy maybe a bit too far, the current itertools solution is like digging *more* potholes to make the road bumpy enough that you don't notice the first pothole.)
(Or failing that, couldn't we add something to itertools to make it more readable rather than going straight to new syntax?)
I'm not sure how we would do that. Even if we could, it would still feel clumsy having to use anything from itertools at all. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
