> Steven Bethard wrote: > >A couple Python-3000 threads [1] [2] have indicated that the most > >natural use of zip() is with sequences of the same lengths. I feel > >the same way, and run into this all the time. Because the error would > >otherwise pass silently, I usually end up adding checks before each > >use of zip() to raise an exception if I accidentally pass in sequences > >of different lengths. > > > >Any chance that zip() in Python 3000 could automatically raise an > >exception if the sequence lengths are different? If there's really a > >need for a zip that just truncates, maybe that could be moved to > >itertools? I think the equal-length scenario is dramatically more > >common, and keeping that error from passing silently would be a good > >thing IMHO.
[Raymond] > -1 > I think this would cause much more harm than good and wreck an > otherwise easy-to-understand tool. Perhaps a compromise could be to add a keyword parameter to request such an exception? (We could even add three options: truncate, pad, error, with truncate being the default, and pad being the old map() and filter() behavior.) -- --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
