Not to derail the conversation, but I've always been curious why the itertools recipes are recipes and not ready-made goods (pre-baked?) that I can just consume. They're great examples to draw from, but that shouldn't preclude them from also being in the stdlib.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:41 PM Michael Selik <m...@selik.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 6:56 PM Jonathan Crall <erote...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sometimes there's a good, useful function than doesn't get added because >>> there's no reasonable place to put it. For example, a "flatten" function >>> has been talked about since Python 1.x days, and we still don't have a >>> standard solution for it, because (1) it isn't clear *precisely* what it >>> should do, and (2) it isn't clear where it should go. >> >> >> The flatten example is good to know about. Is there a link to this >> discussion or a summary of it? I would think flatten could go in itertools, >> but clearly there must some reason why its not there. I imagine the >> duplication with it.chain.from_iter + "There should be one-- and preferably >> only one --obvious way to do it."? >> > > https://docs.python.org/3/library/itertools.html#itertools-recipes > There's an example of ``flatten`` in the itertools recipes. > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
