On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:11 PM Jim J. Jewett <jimjjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Mertz wrote: > > > Fwiw, I don't think it changes my order, but 'strict' is a better word > than > > 'equal' in all those places. I'd subtract 0.1 from each of those votes if > > they used "equal". > > I would say that 'equal' is worse than 'strict'. but 'strict' is also > wrong. > > Zipping to a potentially infinite sequence -- like a manual enumerate -- > isn't wrong. It may be the less common case, but it isn't wrong. Using > 'strict' implies that there is something sloppy about the data in, for > example, cases like Stephen J. Turnbull's lagged time series. > > Unfortunately, the best I can come up with is 'same_length', or possibly > 'equal_len' or 'equal_length'. While those are better semantically, they > are also slightly too long or awkward. I would personally still consider > 'same_length' the least bad option. > > conformant? similar? parallel?
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/VWGV4RCZTZJYU6WP7UR4CEKCNVWEJNOG/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
