Steven D'Aprano added the comment:
> Do you think I should send a mail to the ideas list?
Personally, I don't think so. You want to write any(a, b, c, d),
but you can get the same effect now by writing any([a, b, c, d]).
There is unlikely to be any significant performance difference.
sedrubal added the comment:
Thanks for your answers and for showing the issue with sum.
I think this would make python just a bit more sexier as it already is ;) Are
there any other disadvantages (performance, ...)?
Do you think I should send a mail to the ideas list?
--
Steven D'Aprano added the comment:
Serhiy, that doesn't generalise to code like:
any(a, b, c, *extras)
which is hard to write out by hand. You would have to say
bool(a or b or c or any(extras))
I think this might be worth considering on Python-Ideas. It will probably be
rejected,
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
There is no such need. You can use operators.
any(arg1, arg2, arg3) -> arg1 or arg2 or arg3
all(arg1, arg2, arg3) -> arg1 and arg2 and arg3
sum(arg1, arg2, arg3) -> arg1 + arg2 + arg3
--
nosy: +serhiy.storchaka
resolution: -> rejected
stage: ->
New submission from sedrubal:
any, all and sum (and maybe some other functions) should accept variadic args.
It should be possible to do things like this:
>>> any(True, False, True)
True
>>> all(True, False, True)
False
>>> sum(1, 2, 3)
6
This was compliant to max and min behaviour:
>>>
