From: "Guido van Rossum" <guido@python.org> > Hm, I'm not particularly enamored of the idea of adding 'iter' > versions of everything under the sun. I'm already working on a separate module for iterators galore (and will cross-check to Haskell to make sure I didn't miss anything). I posted this one separately because zip() eats memory like crazy and because a Python generator version crawls like a snail. IMHO, This is a better way to loop over multiple sequences and has a chance at becoming the tool of choice. I scanned all of my Python code and found that iterzip() was a better choice in every case except a matrix transpose coded as zip(*mat). > I wish zip() could've been an > interator from the start, but now that it isn't, I don't think it's > such a big deal. (An iterator version is easily written as a > generator.) > > In general I'm not keen on increasing the number of builtin functions > much. Ditto. Any chance of moving functions like map(), reduce(), and filter() to a functional module; pow() and divmod() to the math module; or input() to oblivion? Raymond Hettinger
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