On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 11:23:38AM +0000, Peter Schneider-Kamp wrote: > 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. > for x,y,z in [a, b, c].zip(): -1. Completely counter-intuitive, in my opinion... It would be nice if having a list of lists to marry() is a common operation, but I doubt it is. Having to create one just for the sake of zip() looks silly to me. > for x,y,z in zip([a, b, c]): -1. What's the point ? What's the difference ? What would 'zip([a,b,c],[d,e,f])' do ? > for x,y,z in zip(a, b, c): Still +0 on this. I still prefer the altered syntax 'for' loop :-) And marry() over zip(). But I can live with this. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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