On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:09 AM Jim J. Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com> wrote:
David Mertz wrote:

> Fwiw, I don't think it changes my order, but 'strict' is a better word than
> 'equal' in all those places. I'd subtract 0.1 from each of those votes if
> they used "equal".

I would say that 'equal' is worse than 'strict'. but 'strict' is also wrong. 

Zipping to a potentially infinite sequence -- like a manual enumerate --
isn't wrong.  It may be the less common case, but it isn't wrong.  Using
'strict' implies that there is something sloppy about the data in, for
example, cases like Stephen J. Turnbull's lagged time series.

Unfortunately, the best I can come up with is 'same_length', or possibly
'equal_len' or 'equal_length'.  While those are better semantically, they
are also slightly too long or awkward.  I would personally still consider
'same_length' the least bad option.


As we've come down to naming things... if you want it to read more like English,

`zip(vorpal_rabbits, holy_hand_grenades, lengths_must_match=True)`

or another chosen variation of that such as `len_must_match=` or `length_must_match=` reads nicely and is pretty self explanatory that an error can be expected if the condition implied by the "must" is found untrue without really feeling a need to look it up in documentation.

It is also harder to type or fit on a line.  Which is one advantage to a short thing like `strict=`.

I don't care so much about the particular spelling here to argue among any of those, I primarily want the feature to exist.

I expect we're entering steering council territory for a decision soon...


Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/G5JTZI6SARFG5AA3H2XJUIUNXR2TBNQ4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/