Ken Manheimer wrote: > > Evan Simpson (a colleague here at digicool, who'd be a good addition > to python-dev) noticed that unzip is unnecessary - zip is its own > inverse. Since this is a worthwhile observation, i'll indulge a bit > and present it in evan's terms - particularly noting a different > packaging that i think is pretty cool, as methods on sequences. Yeah, but this is only true if we let zip() be a sequence method (or a function taking a sequence): for x,y in [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]].zip(): for x,y in zip([[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]]): for x,y in zip([1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]): To be fair I'll do second one: a = [1, 2, 3] b = [4, 5, 6] c = [7, 8, 9] for x,y,z in [a, b, c].zip(): for x,y,z in zip([a, b, c]): for x,y,z in zip(a, b, c): I still think the third form is more explicit, but I am +0 on making zip() a sequence method. Peter -- Peter Schneider-Kamp ++47-7388-7331 Herman Krags veg 51-11 mailto:peter@schneider-kamp.de N-7050 Trondheim http://schneider-kamp.de
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