Skip Montanaro <skip@mojam.com>: > Nothing has really jumped out as the "right" way to express the proposed > builtin that does > > map(None, l1, l2, l3, l4) > > How about collate? What we're doing is effectively what a copy machine does > when it collates multiple copies of its input... At least as good as "knit" and "plait". Better than "weave" (sorry, Barry) and without the unhelpful connotations of "marry" and "zip". A bit long, though. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a> Everything you know is wrong. But some of it is a useful first approximation.
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