Peter Otten wrote: > David Isaac wrote: > > > "Peter Otten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> I think that the test for an empty iterator makes ireduce() unintuitive. > > > > OK. > > I misunderstood you point. > > But that is needed to match the behavior of reduce. > >>>> reduce(operator.add,[],42) > > 42 > > Wouldn't an implementation that gives > > list(ireduce(add, [], 42)) --> [42] > list(ireduce(add, [1], 42)) --> [42, 43] > list(ireduce(add, [1, 2], 42)) --> [42, 43, 45] > list(ireduce(add, [])) --> [] > list(ireduce(add, [1])) --> [1] > list(ireduce(add, [1, 2])) --> [1, 3] > > be sufficiently similar, too? E. g. > > from itertools import chain > > def ireduce(op, iterable, *init): > iterable = chain(init, iterable) > accu = iterable.next() > yield accu > for item in iterable: > accu = op(accu, item) > yield accu > I believe there is only one initializer in reduce. Also it is possible to not provide it.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
