[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/O5RYM6ZDXEB3OAQT75IADT4YLXE25HTT/
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/QO75UXCOC67Y4C2PXBKXHP7P34VCVVOS/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/