That is like Lisp's +, must be good :P Michael
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:38:42 -0800, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a few design choices we could have made for sum(); in > particular, for non-empty sequences we could not have used the > identity element (the optional second argument). As it is, we get > unjustified but understandable complaints that sum() "only supports > numbers". An alternative design could have returned: > > - the identity (defaulting to 0) if the sequence is empty > - the first and only element if the sequence only has one element > - (...(((A + B) + C) + D) + ...) if the sequence has more than one element > > This has surprises too (in particular of returning 0 when invoked > without overriding the identity argument for a seqence of addable > non-numbers) but works without using the second argument for a larger > set of inputs I believe it is often used in such a way that the input > is known to be non-empty). > > I'd be happy to be pointed to a past discussion where this was > considered and rejected with a good reason; then I can post that to > the blog (where the deficiency in sum() is being berated a bit > excessively). > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/michael.walter%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
