On 3/28/06, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > The proposed syntax doesn't quite jive with my guts, and the issue of > > "what to do if they are of unequal length" is a good one, which is > > better solved by being explicit and using zip (== izip). > > Is zip() going to be equivalent to izip(), or will it be a view? I vote > for view. xrange() does not produce an iterator, so there is some > precedence that we not replace list-constructing-builtins with > iterator-constructing-builtins.
I believe it should be an interator (i.e. izip()). I think we should be careful with making everything a view, especially if the *input* can be an arbitrary iterator. filter(), map(), zip(), enumerate() all make perfect sense with an iterator as input, and I don't want to think about the consequences of allowing views on iterators. I think views should only be used when the view invariants can be easily sustained by the underlying data type. A dict can be taught about its views and has complete control because you get the views by calling a method. That's not the case for zip(). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
