On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:39 AM Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
[Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info>]
What do you think of my suggestion that we promote the itertools recipe "take" into a function?
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/O5RYM6...
That it's independent of whether `first()` should be added.
I would _much_ rather write - and read:
a = first(iterable, default)
than
a = take(1, iterable, default)[0]
for much the same reasons I'd much rather write and read "2" than "int(10 / 5)" ;-)
Ditto from me. I bumped up against calling next() recently for the first item and had to rely on the fact that I controlled the code to ignore StopIteration since it was in a small script, but I have needed just the first item so many times before and didn't want any exception to propagate out that I would have loved to have such a function instead of adding to add in a 'try' as well. -Brett
But, as stated before, I'm not a minimalist when it comes to itertools. In turn, I'd much rather write & read`take(n, iterable, default) than the stuff it takes to plug in "enough" defaults, when needed, without it. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/QO75UX... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/