How about each() instead of zip()?
Jeff Bauer
jbauer at rubic.com
Mon Jul 31 10:58:00 EDT 2000
Hamish Lawson wrote:
> A number of the proposals for a better name for the nascent
> zip() function seem to employ the notion of taking items from
> *each* of the constituent sequences. So I thought: how about
> each() itself as the name of the function?
The naming issue for Lockstep iteration is essentially
over. See PEP 201:
http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/pep-0201.html
- The function's name. An earlier version of this PEP included an
open issue listing 20+ proposed alternative names to zip(). In
the face of no overwhelmingly better choice, the BDFL strongly
prefers zip() due to its Haskell[2] heritage. See version 1.7
of this PEP for the list of alternatives.
Jeff Bauer
Rubicon Research
More information about the Python-list
mailing list