Making the case for repeat

Steven D'Aprano steve at
Thu Jun 4 09:53:21 EDT 2009

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:37:45 +0000, pataphor wrote:

> This probably has a snowballs change in hell of ending up in builtins or
> even some in some module, but such things should not prevent one to try
> and present the arguments for what one thinks is right. Else one would
> end up with consequentialism and that way lies madness and hyperreality.

It would be cruel of me to say "Too late", so I shall merely ask, what on 
earth are you going on about?

> So here is my proposed suggestion for a once and for all reconciliation
> of various functions in itertools that can not stand on their own and
> keep a straight face. Because of backwards compatibility issues we
> cannot remove them but we can boldly jump forward and include the right
> repeat in the builtin namespace, which I think would be the best thing.

What is "the right repeat"? What's wrong with the old one? If you're 
going to make a proposal, you have to actually *make the proposal* and 
not just say "Here, have some code, now put it in the builtins because 
the rest of itertools is teh suxor!!!". That rarely goes down well.

(I don't know if that's exactly what you're trying to say, but it seems 
that way to me.)

I've run your test code, and I don't know what I'm supposed to be 
impressed by.


More information about the Python-list mailing list