Suggesting a new feature - "Inverse Generators"
mahs at telcopartners.com
Fri Mar 25 21:07:23 CET 2005
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Michael Spencer wrote:
>> itertools.groupby enables you to do this, you just need to define a
>> suitable grouping function, that stores its state:
> Michael, this would make a great Python Cookbook Recipe.
OK, will do. What would you call it? Something like: "Stateful grouping of
> Nice, but I think "record" is a bit opaque semantically.
> How about group_id or generate_incrementing_unique_id_for_each_group_to_group_by or such?
> Bengt Richter
Agreed, it's an issue. I think the most natural name is groupby - but that
would cause more trouble. What do you think about 'grouping' ?
I would use 'generate_incrementing_unique_id_for_each_group_to_group_by', but
then people might think I'm trying to outdo Bob Ippolito :-)
> I think your example would
> be more clear for Jordan if you used function attributes:
> def record(item):
> if len(item) > 20:
> record.seq +=1
> return record.seq
> record.seq = 0
That does read better than the mutable default argument hack. Is this use of
function attributes generally encouraged? (I tend to think of func_dict for
meta-data, used only outside the function) Thoughts?
More information about the Python-list