[Python-ideas] Add an option for delimiters in bytes.hex()

[Erik]

On 04/05/17 01:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 12:13:25AM +0100, Erik wrote:
>> I had a use-case where splitting an iterable into a sequence of
>> same-sized chunks efficiently improved the performance of my code
> [...]
>> So I didn't propose it. I have no idea now what I spent my saved hours
>> doing, but I imagine that it was fun
>
>> Summary: I didn't present the argument because I'm not a masochist
>
> I'm not sure what the point of that anecdote was, unless it was "I wrote
> some useful code, and you missed out".

Then you have misunderstood me. Paul suggested that my use-case 
(chunking could be faster) was perhaps enough to propose that my patch 
may be considered. I responded with historical/empirical evidence that 
perhaps that would actually not be the case.

I was responding, honestly, to the questions raised by Paul's email.

> Your comments come across as a passive-aggressive chastisment of the
> core devs and the Python-Ideas community for being too quick to reject
> useful code: we missed out on something good, because you don't have the
> time or energy to deal with our negativity and knee-jerk rejection of
> everything good. That's the way your series of posts come across to me.

I apologise if my words or my turn of phrase do not appeal to you. I am 
trying to be constructive with everything I post.

If you choose to interpret my messages in a different way then I'm not 
sure what I can do about that.

Back to the important stuff though:

> - you could have offered it to the moreitertools project;

A more efficient version of moreitertools.chunked() is what we're 
talking about.

> - you could have published it on PyPy;

Does PyPy support C extension modules? If so, that's a possibility.

> - you could have proposed it on Python-Ideas with an explicit statement

I may well do that - my current patch (because of when I did it) is 
against a Py2 codebase, but I could port it to Py3. I still have a 
nagging doubt that I'd be wasting my time though ;)


> If
> you care so little that you can't be bothered even to propose it, why do
> you care if it is rejected?

You are mistaking not caring enough about the functionality with not 
caring enough to enter into an argument about including that 
functionality ...

I didn't propose it at the time because of the reasons I mentioned. But 
when I saw something being discussed yet again that I had a general 
solution for already written I thought I mention it in case it was 
useful. As I said, I'm _trying_ to be constructive.

E.