Generically, not genetically. Shouldn't reply on phone.

On Jul 17, 2016 2:56 PM, "David Mertz" <> wrote:

I don't want to speak for Serhiy, but it seems like he wants NumPy-like behaviors over generic sequences. I think this idea is appealing.

For example, Python list has O(1) append, while the equivalent for np.ndarray would be an O(n) copy to a larger array.

Expressing those NumPy affordances genetically feels like a good thing. However, maybe this is something that could live in PyPI first top stabilize APIs.

On Jul 17, 2016 1:08 PM, "Michael Selik" <> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 3:22 PM Serhiy Storchaka <> wrote:
Maybe it's time to add a new module for sequence-specific functions
(seqtools?). It should contain at least two classes or fabric functions:

1. A view that represents a sliced subsequence. Lazy equivalent of
seq[start:end:step]. This feature is implemented in third-party module
dataview [1].

2. A view that represents a linear sequence as 2D array. Iterating this
view emits non-intersecting chunks of the sequence. For example it can
be used for representing the bytes object as a sequence of 1-byte bytes
objects (as in 2.x), a generalized alternative to iterbytes() from PEP
467 [2].

NumPy slicing and reshaping sounds like it satisfies these requirements. Does it not?

Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: