> > I don't think that using a function called "xmap" to build tuples is > > very intuitive to start with. What's so wrong with a builtin called > > "tuples()"? 1. Trailing single-character difference between "tuple()" and "tuples()". (We'd take marks off students for naming things this way, wouldn't we?) 2. Need separate functions for creating tuples, lists, dicts, etc. I liked Ken M.'s idea of one function that took a type argument, and stitched/married/wove/welded/whatever'd its arguments to create something of that type, as it would require only one new function. Greg
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