Luke wrote:
>> Once C<zip> stops zipping, if any other element has a known finite
>> number of unexhausted elements remaining, the <zip> fails.
>
> Wow, that's certainly not giving the user any credit.
Actually, I want to be careful because I give the users too much credit. For
imagination.
> I'm just wondering why you feel that we need to be so careful.
Because I can think of at least three reasonable and useful default behaviours
for zipping lists of differing lengths:
# Minimal (stop at first exhausted list)...
for @names ¥ @addresses -> $name, $addr {
...
}
# Maximal (insert undefs for exhausted lists)...
for @finishers ¥ (10..1 :by(-1)) -> $name, $score {
$score err next;
...
}
# Congealed (ignore exhausted lists)...
for @queue1 ¥ @queue2 -> $server {
...
}
Which means that there will be people who expect each of those to *be* the
default behaviour for unbalanced lists. Which means there shouldn't be any
default for unbalanced lists, since whatever that default is won't DWIM for
2/3 of the potential users. Which means that unbalanced lists ought to produce
an error, unless the user specifies how to deal with the imbalance.
Damian
