On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Jack Jansen wrote:
>
> intertwine() and interlace() both give me the right feeling. Although with
> interlace I might be tempted to pass it two 320x480 bitmaps and assume an NTSC
> image will come out:-)
Sorry for flip-flopping on this -- to Paul especially -- but
parallel() is looking better and better as i compare it with
these other alternatives.
It seems clear that the most common use of this thing is in a
parallel-iteration idiom, and that it would be quite rarely
used as part of an expression elsewhere. Given that, consider:
for x, y, z in marry(a, b, c): print x + y + z
for x, y, z in twine(a, b, c): print x + y + z
for x, y, z in lace(a, b, c): print x + y + z
for x, y, z in zip(a, b, c): print x + y + z
for x, y, z in parallel(a, b, c): print x + y + z
Which one makes its behaviour most obvious to you? For me,
parallel() really stands out. It's so strong that it could
outweigh the potential connotation of concurrency. (In fact,
it *is* sort of concurrent. If each list were a generator,
they would all be running concurrently to produce the triplets
we're requesting.)
(If "parallel" disturbs you too much, the concept of parallel
*movement* inspires me to suggest "march", which has all of that
good walking-together-in-lock-step feeling, with none of the
twisty feeling i get from "twine" or "lace" or the
alternating-back-and-forth feeling i get from "weave" or "interlace".)
-- ?!ng
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