Le 22/03/2016 08:34, Graham Gower a écrit :
On 22 March 2016 at 16:19, Michael Selik
wrote: On Mar 21, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Michel Desmoulin
wrote: if you need more, then you need itertools. Few people know about it, so I usually see duplicate loops and conversion to lists/tuples. Why do you think the new syntax you're suggesting will be more discoverable and therefore more well known than the itertools module?
And consider the other side of the coin. If I read code using a function of the itertools module, its easy to look up the definition; if I read code featuring a rarely used syntax, how easy is it to come up with search engine terms to describe the syntax, and thus find documentation for the feature?
I see your point. Again, this is the weakest point of my proposal, we should not discard all of it just because of that. And maybe we can come up with something better. E.G: I suggested before that iter() returns objects with advanced semantics for [:] as an alternative to add slicing to generators. Maybe the same objects can come with a chain() method, which is explicit. Or provide an additional builtin function, which does help with those issues if changing iter() is not possible.