On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:24:20AM +0200, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 12.12.19 03:22, Stephen J. Turnbull пише:
> >I would prefer that it not be implemented at all, but
> >if it is implemented, its behavior should respect the intuition of the
> >majority of those who want it, which seems to me to be "a variant of
> >next() that doesn't raise and returns None by default on an empty
> >iterable."
> 
> This is not what the majority expects and is not how first() from 
> more-itertools works.

I don't know who this majority is, or how you know they are a majority, 
but in this thread, the OP Juancarlo's implementation behaved as Stephen 
suggested; Guido's version behaved as Stephen suggested; my version 
behaved as Stephen suggested.

I don't recall who wants a version of first that raises, or when that 
would be useful. It would greatly limit it's usefulness in expressions, 
since it needs to be guarded by a try...except.



-- 
Steven
_______________________________________________
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/2TX3CX3T27N23I46MLXB6LPLP465YX4H/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to