Tim Peters <[email protected]> added the comment:
Possibly, sure. But I believe it's hard to beat
add(node, *predecessors)
for usability as a way to build the dependency graph. For example, a list of
pairs is a comparative PITA for most use cases I've had. Whether it's
following a recipe to bake a cake, or tracing a maze of C include files, it
seems _most_ natural to get input in the form "this thing depends on these
other things". Not the other way around, and neither a sequence of pairs.
_If_ you buy that, then .add() is screamingly natural, and trying to squash a
pile of .add()s into a single sequence-of-sequences argument seems strained.
Typically I don't get input in one big, single gulp. It's instead discovered
one item at a time. Fine - .add() it and then move on to the next item. It's
certainly possible to append the item and its predecessors to a persistent
(across items) list, and call a function once at the end with that list.
But what does that buy? I'm building the list solely to meet the function's
input requirement - the list serves no other purpose. Instead of calling
.add() N times, I call .append() N times. "add" is 3 letters shorter ;-)
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue17005>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
