I've seen this proposed here before. The general idea is that some iterator transformations (like enumerate) should return sequences when they're applied to sequences. I think it's good idea, but it adds complexity and work, which I guess needs to be justified on a case-by-case basis. In short, this has nothing to do with reversed. If you made enumerate return a sequence when its input is a sequence, you would also be able to do enumerate(some_list)[34], which could also be useful. I think it makes Python slightly more perfect and more beautiful. Best, Neil On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 6:23:20 AM UTC-5 Nuri Jung wrote:
So, what is the conclusion? I also think reversed(enumerate(some_seq)) will be very useful in many cases. It should: 1) work the same as reversed(tuple(enumerate(...))) for "reversible" objects as argument of enumerate, 2) raise TypeError if the object is not reversible.
Or, another option would be adding a "step" keyword argument to enumerate. Then, reversing enumerate would be much easier, like this: enumerate(reversed(some_seq), step=-1) _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python...@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-id...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python...@python.org/message/BW2XKRZ4T... <https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/BW2XKR...> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/