> Someone should really write up a PEP -- this was just discussed a week
> or two ago.
Heh.. I should follow the list more closely.
> I personally think this is adequately handled by writing:
>
> (first, second), rest = something[:2], something[2:]
That's an alternative indeed. But the the proposed way does look better:
for item in iterator:
(first, second), rest = item[2:], item[:2]
...
vs.
for first, second, *rest in iterator:
...
> I believe that this wish is an example of "hypergeneralization" -- an
> incorrect generalization based on a misunderstanding of the underlying
> principle.
Thanks for trying so hard to say in a nice way that this is not
a good idea. :-)
> Argument lists are not tuples [*] and features of argument lists
> should not be confused with features of tuple unpackings.
Do you agree that the concepts are related?
For instance:
>>> def f(first, second, *rest):
... print first, second, rest
...
>>> f(1,2,3,4)
1 2 (3, 4)
>>> first, second, *rest = (1,2,3,4)
>>> print first, second, rest
1 2 (3, 4)
> [*] Proof: f(1) is equivalent to f(1,) even though (1) is an int but
> (1,) is a tuple.
"Extended *tuple* unpacking" was a wrong subject indeed. This is
general unpacking, since it's supposed to work with any sequence.
--
Gustavo Niemeyer
http://niemeyer.net
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4