Barry A. Warsaw
Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:05:42 -0400
>>>>> "RH" == Raymond Hettinger <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
RH> IMHO, This is a better way to loop over multiple sequences and
RH> has a chance at becoming the tool of choice. I scanned all of
RH> my Python code and found that iterzip() was a better choice in
RH> every case except a matrix transpose coded as zip(*mat).
I'd much rather see a patch that just changed zip() to be an iterator
instead of adding an iterzip(). I doubt that much in-field code would
break because of it (but write the PEP to find out. ;).
RH> Ditto. Any chance of moving functions like map(), reduce(),
RH> and filter() to a functional module; pow() and divmod() to the
RH> math module; or input() to oblivion?
>>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum <email@example.com> writes:
GvR> I wish. Since they were there first, it's hard to get rid of
GvR> them. (If you're truly masochist, write a PEP and post it to
GvR> c.l.py to find out how hard. :-)
The PEP would have to specify a migration plan, i.e. the builtins are
identical to the functional module versions, and would a deprecation