> > My bid for a name: splice(). > > Wearing my English-usage-pedant hat, I must regretfully judge this > inferior to weave(). The reason has to do with the spatial geometry > implied by the verbs. > > You *splice* two ropes together end-to-end; the proper data-structure > analogy is with concatenation, and indeed splice() in Perl is a sort > of generalized slice'n'dicer for sequences. > > On the other hand, you *weave* two threads together side by side to > form a parallel bundle. Much closer image. Oops. I see now that splice isn't the right thing. But the first meaning of weave that comes to me suggest a 2D interlacing of threads that gives the wrong impression here (I know there are others but I'm much less familiar with them). I looked in a thesaurus and found a few potential alternatives: twine entwine intertwine interweave interlace interspeerse If none of these appeal, I say let's use zip and end this impossibly long thread. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://dinsdale.python.org/~guido/)
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