[Python-ideas] Add an option for delimiters in bytes.hex()
python at lucidity.plus.com
Wed May 3 21:32:24 EDT 2017
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
> - 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 ;)
> 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
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.
More information about the Python-ideas