Carlos Ribeiro wrote:
I may be wrong (and if that's the case, I would like to be politely educated on why), but isn't it already on a PEP-worthy point? IOW, if people are not interested, then the PEP will simply be rejected, which is a good thing, because it will at least document the case.
Good point - I've sent it to the PEP editors to request a number.
I also believe that the pre-PEP should be posted to the main Python list, where it may be beaten to death & flamed by a larger audience. I am willing to do it myself, but I assume that is more polite on my part if I ask you to do it :-)
I'd wait to see what the PEP editors think, myself. I'm not entirely sure the idea is focused well enough to make a good PEP (I could argue either way, and I wrote the thing!). However, if you want to post it over there for discussion, feel free.
Reference Implementation ========================
As yet, no reference implementation is available for either part of the proposal.
I though the iunpack() code in the previous section would be acceptable as a 'reference implementation'.
Unfortunately, itertools is a C module :P
Open Issues ===========
- Should ``itertools.iunpack`` call ``iter()`` on its first argument?
+1
We'll go with that then. . . y'know, I could have made that change before sending the PEP draft in. Ah well, we can change it later - I doubt the PEP will surive c.l.p. (or even py-dev) unscathed, anyway. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia Email: ncoghlan@email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268