Well said! On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 16:33 Juancarlo Añez <juancarlo.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:02 PM Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > >> Fair enough. I’ll let the OP defend his use case. >> > > The OP thinks that the case for wanting just the string for a first regex > match, or a verifiable default if there is no match, is way too common, > that the advice on the web is not very good (it should be "write a > findfirst() using next() over finditer()", and that novices default to > using findall(..)[0], which is troublesome. > > The proposed implementation of a findfirst() would handle many common > cases, and be friendly to newcomers (why do I need to deal with a Match > object?), specially if the semantics are those of *findall()*: > > next(iter(findall(...)), default=default) > > BTW, a common function in extensions to *itertools* is *first():* > > def first(seq, default=None): > return next(iter(seq), default= default) > > That function, *first()*, would also be a nice addition in *itertools*, > and *findfirst()* could be implemented using it. *first()* avoids most > use cases needing to check if a sequence or iterator is empty before using > a default value. MHO is that *first()* deals with so many common cases > that it should be a builtin. > > Note that the case for *findfirst()* is weaker if *first()* is available. > Yet *findfirst()* solves the bigger problem. > > -- > Juancarlo *Añez* > tel:+58(414)901-2021 > skype:juancarloanez > -- --Guido (mobile)
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/2JYMODHW3WVUS3UZYK2BTIWO4ONVHPR7/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
