[Python-ideas] Generator unpacking

[Michael Selik]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 AM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas <
python-ideas at python.org> wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2016, at 19:47, Rob Cliffe <rob.cliffe at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> So you'd rather people learned the word "collection" (which does not
> convey that they are reiterable) and then *learned* that collections can be
> iterated over repeatedly, than learn the word "reiterable" that makes it *immediately
> obvious* that something can be iterated over repeatedly.
>
>
> Because "reiterable" is really not immediately obvious. It has no
> intuitive meaning;
>

Seems intuitive to me that reiterable is repeatedly iterable, or at least
iterable more than once. I suppose the dictionary would say that the "re-"
prefix means "again". The word "non-iterable" isn't in the glossary and
people seem to get that it means not iterable. If something is autoiterable
it'd iterate over itself (so an iterator is autoiterable?), if something is
semiiterable, it'd be kinda-iterable or half-iterable. I'm not sure what
that means, but I'll bet I'd understand it in context. Maybe when you
iterate over it you don't actually get all the elements.

The English language is very flexible and can match Python's flexibility. I
think it's the desire to use an inflexible glossary word that led people
into the confusions/misuse you've described.

> It's whether other people know there's a word they can use.

I doubt a glossary entry would solve that problem. Instead I think
premature glossarizing (a new word!) would create confusion as some people
use a word with the glossary definition and some use it however the word
makes sense in that particular conversation.

Perhaps we could try something similar to the progression of a module from
personal to PyPI to popularity to standard library. Jargon should first be
popular in natural usage (without long debates) on the mailing lists before
it gets added to the glossary.

I know you really want to add something like this to the glossary, as
you've brought it up before. I think a very convincing argument would be
referencing a few conversations where you used a term, either word or
phrase, to successfully clarify a conversation without needing to debate
its definition.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20160216/a6226fea/attachment.html>