I like yours better. Plenty of recipes sit on top of other recipes, e.g., pairwise sits on top of tee. On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:57:29 AM UTC-5, bunslow wrote:
For taking values alternately from a series of iterables, there's two primary functions:
builtin.zip itertools.zip_longest
zip of course stops when the shortest iterable ends. zip_longest is generally a useful substitute for when you don't want the zip behavior, but it fills extra values in the blanks rather than just ignoring a finished iterator and moving on with the rest.
This latter most use case is at least somewhat common, according to this[1] StackOverflow question (and other duplicates), in addition to the existence of the `roundrobin` recipe[2] in the itertools docs. The recipe satisfies this use case, and its code is repeated in the StackOverflow answer.
However, it is remarkably unpythonic, in my opinion, which is one thing when such is necessary to achieve a goal, but for this functionality, such is most definitely *not* necessary. I'll paste the code here for quick reference:
def roundrobin(*iterables): "roundrobin('ABC', 'D', 'EF') --> A D E B F C" pending = len(iterables) nexts = cycle(iter(it).__next__ for it in iterables) while pending: try: for next in nexts: yield next() except StopIteration: pending -= 1 nexts = cycle(islice(nexts, pending))
Things that strike me as unpythonic: 1) requiring the total number of input iterables 2) making gratuitous use of `next`, 3) using a while loop in code dealing with iterables, 4) combining loops, exceptions, and composed itertools functions in non-obvious ways that make control flow difficult to determine
Now, I get it, looking at the "roughly equivalent to" code for zip_longest in the docs, there doesn't seem to be much way around it for generally similar goals, and as I said above, unpythonic is fine when necessary (practicality beats purity), but in this case, for being a "recipe" in the itertools docs, it should *make use* of the zip_longest which already does all the unpythonic stuff for you (though honestly I'm not convinced either that the zip_longest code in the docs is the most possible pythonic-ness). Instead, the following recipe (which I also submitted to the StackOverflow question, and which is generally similar to several other later answers, all remarking that they believe it's more pythonic) is much cleaner and more suited to demonstrating the power of itertools to new developers than the mess of a "recipe" pasted above.
def roundrobin(*iters): "roundrobin('ABC', 'D', 'EF') --> A D E B F C" # Perhaps "flat_zip_nofill" is a better name, or something similar sentinel = object() for tup in it.zip_longest(*iters, fillvalue=sentinel): yield from (x for x in tup if x is not sentinel)
In particular, this is just an extremely thin wrapper around zip_longest, whose primary purpose is to eliminate the otherwise-mandatory "fillvalues" that zip_longest requires to produce uniform-length tuples. It's also an excellent example of how to make best pythonic use of iterables in general, and itertools in particular, and as such a much better implementation to be demonstrated in documentation.
I would thus advocate that the former recipe is replaced with the latter recipe, being much more pythonic, understandable, and useful for helping new developers acquire the style of python. (Using the common linguistics analogy: a dictionary and grammar for a spoken language may be enough to communicate, but we rely on a large body of literature -- fiction, research, poetry, etc -- as children to get that special flavor and most expressive taste to the language. The stdlib is no Shakespeare, but it and its docs still form an important part of the formative literature of the Python language.)
I realize at the end of the day this is a pretty trivial and ultimately meaningless nit to pick, but I've never contributed before and have a variety of similar minor pain points in the docs/stdlib, and I'm trying to gauge 1) how well this sort of minor QoL improvement is wanted, and 2) even if it is wanted, am I going about it the right way. If the answers to both of these questions are positive regarding this particular case, then I'll look into making a BPO issue and pull request on GitHub, which IIUC is the standard path for contributions.
Thank you for your consideration.
~~~~
[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3678869/pythonic-way-to-combine-two-list...
[2]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/itertools.html#itertools-recipes