[Python-ideas] itertools recipes: why not add them to the stdlib *somewhere*?

Alexandre Zani alexandre.zani at gmail.com
Tue Jul 10 00:42:52 CEST 2012


On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Oleg Broytman <phd at phdru.name> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:28:41AM +1000, wu wei <wuwei23 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Every inclusion to the library adds overhead to finding and using elements
>> of the library.
>
>    And supporting it. It's much harder to remove bits from stdlib than
> to add to it because stdlib have to maintain backward compatibility.
>
> Oleg.
> --
>      Oleg Broytman            http://phdru.name/            phd at phdru.name
>            Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

It is a good point that those recipes because they are in the official
docs are already requiring support and maintenance. However, as
somebody above mentioned, there are many possible variations on those
recipes and so it makes a lot more sense to tell people to implement
their own version of grouper that will match their specific needs
rather than create an infinitely configurable version of grouper in
the stdlib. Furthermore, if the maintenance of those recipes ever
becomes undesirable, it is a simple matter to strike them from the
docs. The same cannot be said if they were inducted in the stdlib.

Alexandre Zani



More information about the Python-ideas mailing list