zip() : how about braid()

[Bjorn Pettersen]

Anyone suggested parallel yet?

  for i,j in parallel([4,5,6],[7,8,9]):
    print i,j

or-is-that-too-obvious'ly y'rs
-b

Al Christians wrote:
> 
> Suggestions: dice() (as in slice and dice), crossPollinate(),
> crossTupulate(), affiliate(), affiance(), or yoke(), as when columns
> of horses or mules are yoked side-by-side.
> 
> Al
> 
> Ben Wolfson wrote:
> >
> > On 21 Jul 2000 19:33:31 GMT, aahz at netcom.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <3977C2A8.6D8F7586 at my.signature>,
> > >Greg Ewing  <see at my.signature> wrote:
> > >>"Jürgen Hermann" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> merge() is the best yet, since it's a common (programming) term with a
> > >>> well-defined meaning.
> > >>
> > >>But it's a DIFFERENT meaning!
> > >>
> > >>merge([1,2,4,6,7,8],[3,5,9]) --> [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9])
> > >
> > >No, that's only when "merge" is a modifier for "sort".
> >
> > I would expect merge() called on n lists to return a list consisting of all
> > its arguments concatenated.
> >
> > --
> > Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
> >
> > My despair has long since been ground up fine and is no more than the daily
> > salt and pepper of my life.
> >  -- Russell Hoban, _Turtle Diary_
> --
> http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list