On 15/05/2020 16:56, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:54 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 10:46:25 -0400 David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
1. +1 itertools.zip_strict function 2. +1 zip.strict(*args) 3. +1 zip(*args, mode='strict') # mode='shortest' by default 4. +0 zip(*args, strict=True)
Mostly I agree with Steven on relative preference:
itertools.zip_strict() +1 zip.strict() +0.5 zip(mode='strict') +0 zip(strict=True) -0.5
For me:
* zip(strict=True) +1 * zip(mode='strict') -0 * itertools.zip_strict() -0.5 * zip.strict() -1 (but really, I'd like to make this -1e10)
Since we're posting:
itertools.zip_strict() +1 zip.strict() +0.1 zip(strict=True) -0.5 zip(mode='strict') -1
Well, if it's what all the cool kids are doing... * itertools.zip_strict() +1 * zip.strict() +0 * zip(mode='strict') -0 * zip(strict=True) -1 The middle two would be weird if zip_longest doesn't get folded in eventually, which might push them (more) negative. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd