Tim Peters wrote:
It's fair enough, although rather than "wrong" I'd say more that it's inappropriately applying design principles that work well in most of Python's libraries to an area where they don't. The very fact that half the itertools docs are devoted to "recipes" kinda suggests it knows it's leaving its intended audience hanging ;-)
Yeah I'm personally not a huge fan of how large the recipes section of itertools is, compared to the actual module contents. My personal opinion is that the recipes section should be primarily for niche or complex algorithms that wouldn't be general purpose enough to be used for the module, but still have legitimate use cases. If it's general purpose enough and has a legitimate use case, it should be added as a function, not as a recipe. Instead, it seems to have gradually turned into: "Put everything in the recipes section that might be useful and can be implemented using existing tools, even if adding a dedicated function would be more readable. Only add a new function if it doesn't already exist in some other form, no matter how obscure." (oversimplified, but that's been my interpretation). The last time a new function was added to itertools was back in 3.2 (2011), for itertools.accumulate(). I think itertools.first() is a good example of something that would be useful and general-purpose enough to be included as a function in itertools. `first_item = first(iterable)` is much easier to read than `first_item = next(iter(iterable))`, not to mention first(iterable) raising a ValueError instead of StopIteration on an empty iterable, which seems much more clear to me. I also find the default version (where an exception isn't raised) to be a lot easier to read with first, especially if *default* is able to be passed as a keyword argument. Compare `first_item = first(iterable, default=None)` to `first_item = `next(iter(iterable), None)` (next doesn't take any kwargs). If even those who have been involved with Python's development since its infancy aren't overly familiar with 2-arg next(), how could we reasonably expect the average user to be? I'll admit that I had not even heard about the 2-arg next() until reading the posts in this thread. My method of extracting the first value from an iterable (when I wanted it to default to None instead of raising StopIteration) was: ```py try: first_item = next(iter(iterable)) except StopIteration: first_item = None ``` On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:15 PM Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
[Andrew Barnert <abarnert@yahoo.com>]
... I think you’re arguing that the philosophy of itertools is just wrong, at least for the kind of code you usually write with it and the kind of people who usually write that code. Is that fair, or am I misrepresenting you here?
It's fair enough, although rather than "wrong" I'd say more that it's inappropriately applying design principles that work well in most of Python's libraries to an area where they don't. The very fact that half the itertools docs are devoted to "recipes" kinda suggests it knows it's leaving its intended audience hanging ;-)
It's hardly coincidence that the more-itertools and itertoolz packages are richer, in very similar ways, than Python's version. The primary itertoolz author does a nice job of explaining that project's heritage starting here:
https://toolz.readthedocs.io/en/latest/heritage.html
Meanwhile, I think Guido and some others accept the itertools philosophy
Don't know about Guido, but certainly applies to Raymond. Guido is more a practicality-beats-purity guy. but has no natural attraction to functional languages (Raymond partly does, with his APL background). Guido just sees a function here that would be nice to have.
I do like functional languages, and always have, so it seems to fall on me here to advocate for what those weirdos value. In part, no, the itertools namespace is not a precious resource that must be vigilantly minimized ;-)
but argue that first needs to be there because many of the kinds of people who need it actually can’t just write it themselves (they don’t know about 2-arg next, or they don’t understand the subtleties of leaking StopIteration, or whatever). That’s a pretty different argument. (Not that there can’t be something to both arguments, of course.)
And I expect Raymond would say `first()` isn't needed at all - if it has to be addressed, make it recipe #30.
There's something to that argument too. _______________________________________________ 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/JPOU2L... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/