#19895: extend lazy lists: various improvements and generalizations, new
sublists
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dkrenn | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.0
Component: misc | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Daniel Krenn | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/dkrenn/extend_lazy_lists | 3b63c4792714b2e57dda38b6d9a69e2cf663ba94
Dependencies: #16137 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vdelecroix):
* status: needs_review => needs_info
Comment:
Hello,
This does not look like an improvement to me. Lazy lists aimed to be
'''simple'''. You are introducing nine new attributes. If you want a
`fancy_list`, just inherit.
On the other hand, you can make only one object for `dropwhile/takewhile`.
It is not good to multiply the number of classes in this file. I am
already not happy that we have 4. I am also not happy with the fact that
`start` might change. Could you make this computation in the constructor
of `dropwhile` and avoid complicating the code of the generic list?
What is the usecase of `dropwhile/takewhile` that would not be taken care
with `itertools.dropwhile` or `itertools.takewhile`?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19895#comment:8>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
