On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 09:41:00PM -0700, Christopher Barker wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 6:17 PM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> > > > map(func, x, y, strict=True) # ?
> > > >
> > > > Admittedly the word "strict" in the context of `map` would be rather
> > > > confusing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This a really good argument for "equal" rather than "strict".
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not seeing why this would be confusing for `map` but not
> > `zip`. And "equal" might suggest that x and y need to be equal.
> >
>
> of course it would be confusing for zip.
Dominik seems to think that it is acceptable for zip but confusing for
map, so I don't think that any confusion deserves to be described with
"of course". At least, it's not obvious to me why it is confusing.
We currently have a pair of zip functions that are tolerant of
mismatched data: zip stops at the shortest input, and zip_longest pads
the input. This proposal would be a strict version of zip.
[...]
> > Perhaps "truncate" or even "trunc" is a better keyword than either
> > strict or equal. Not that I'm arguing for a keyword here.
> >
>
> But it wouldn't be truncating anything.
`truncate=True` would be the current behaviour, which truncates at the
shortest input:
py> list(zip('a', range(100000)))
[('a', 0)]
--
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/L4534OMAMBDP4OLNLBAWNQXXKY7GAN27/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
