On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:09:44 GMT, rumours say that "Raymond Hettinger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written:
[snip]
>> Did I make you believe I cared about the fate of any function judged unworthy
>> even for the documentation?
>
>No. My note was mainly for the benefit of those who had an inte
>itertools.window() with n=2 got rejected. Almost all proposed uses had better
> >solutions (such as an accumulator variable or fibonacci sequence style logic:
> >a, b = b, a+b). Writing it in C afforded only small speed advantage over a
> >solution using izip() and tee().
[Christos TZOTZIOY Geo
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:52:40 GMT, rumours say that "Raymond Hettinger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written:
[snip of lots of stuff]
>itertools.window() with n=2 got rejected. Almost all proposed uses had better
>solutions (such as an accumulator variable or fibonacci sequence style logic:
>a,
Thank you for your answers, Raymond Hettinger.
>The options also suggest that the abstraction is not as basic or
universal as we would hope.<
I don't understand, but this is normal.
> ll = open("namefile").read().split()
> r = partition(map(float, ll), 4)
>If you need that to be flattened one
> "Raymond" == Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steven> complex atomicity test). I also have the feeling that any
Steven> complicated atomictiy test is more than a simple and-ing
Steven> of several tests...
Raymond> "Ville Vainio"
>> I also have the feeling
> Steven> complex atomicity test). I also have the feeling that any
> Steven> complicated atomictiy test is more than a simple and-ing
> Steven> of several tests...
"Ville Vainio"
> I also have the feeling that if the atomicity criterion was any more
> complex in the API, the proposal
> "Steven" == Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steven> complex atomicity test). I also have the feeling that any
Steven> complicated atomictiy test is more than a simple and-ing
Steven> of several tests...
I also have the feeling that if the atomicity criterion was any
Robert Brewer wrote:
Steven Bethard wrote:
Ville Vainio wrote:
A simpler API:
def flatten(sequence, atomic_test = lambda o:
isinstance(o,basestring)):
""" don't recurse into iterables if atomic_test -> True """
Yes, this is also the API I would have suggested. Simple,
but flexible enough to han
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Ville Vainio wrote:
> > A simpler API:
> >
> > def flatten(sequence, atomic_test = lambda o:
> isinstance(o,basestring)):
> > """ don't recurse into iterables if atomic_test -> True """
>
> Yes, this is also the API I would have suggested. Simple,
> but flexible enoug
Ville Vainio wrote:
A simpler API:
def flatten(sequence, atomic_test = lambda o: isinstance(o,basestring)):
""" don't recurse into iterables if atomic_test -> True """
Yes, this is also the API I would have suggested. Simple, but flexible
enough to handle the odd cases with the occasional user-
> "Raymond" == Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raymond> Each one of the options listed is a reason that flatten()
Raymond> shouldn't be an itertool. It fails tests of obviousness,
Raymond> learnability, complexity of implementation, and
Raymond> simplicity of API
[bearophile]
> This was my suggestion for a possible flatten():
>
> flatten(sequence, level=-1, tuples=True, strings=False, safe=False)
> - tuples=True then it flattens tuples too.
> - strings=True then it flattens strings with len(s)>1 too.
> - safe if True it cheeks (with something like an iterat
"Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> FWIW, requests for additions to the itertools module have not fallen on
> deaf
> ears. There are no arbitrary restraints on building out this module.
> Each
> request has gotten careful thought and a couple of th
Thank you for your very good and interesting answer Raymond. In the
Itertool library there are functions not really simple to use/remember,
but a flatten() and a partition() can probably be easy to remember
(your window() function is probably a sliding window, so it's not a
partition(), I presume).
[Ville Vainio]
> >For quick-and-dirty stuff, it's often convenient to flatten a sequence
> >(which perl does, surprise surprise, by default):
. . .
> >but something like this would be handy in itertools as well.
> >
> >It seems trivial, but I managed to screw up several times when trying
> >to pro
15 matches
Mail list logo
