On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:11 PM 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.

conformant? similar? parallel?