On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 09:21:41AM -0700, Andrew Barnert wrote: > But this doesn’t do what the OP suggested; it’s a completely different > proposal. They wanted to write this: > > zipped = zip(xs, ys).skip() > > … and you’re offering this: > > zipped = zip.skip(xs, ys) > > That’s a decent proposal—arguably better than the one being > discussed—but it’s definitely not the same one.
So he did. I misread his comment, sorry. Perhaps I read it as I would have written it rather than as he wrote it :-( [...] > Your design looks like a pretty good one at least at first glance, and > I think you should propose it seriously. You should be showing why > it’s better than adding methods to zip objects—and also better than > adding more functions to itertools or builtins, or flags to zip, or > doing nothing—not pretending it’s the same as one of those other > proposals and then trying to defend that other proposal by confusing > the problems with it. Last time I got volunteered into writing a PEP I wasn't in favour of, and (initially at least) thought I was writing to have the rejection reason documented, it ended up getting approved :-) -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/YFU2XWVZDNBP3EBGEKE7DYT3DVEUPAQO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
