Hi everyone, first participation in Python’s mailing list, don’t be too hard on
me
Some suggested above to change the definition of len in the long term. Then I
think it could be interesting to define len such as :
- If has a finite length : return that length (the way it works now)
- If has a length that is infinity : return infinity
- If has no length : return None
There’s an issue with this solution, having None returned add complexity to the
usage of len, then I suggest to have a wrapper over __len__ methods so it
throws the current error.
But still, there’s a problem with infinite length objects. If people code :
for i in range(len(infinite_list)):
# Something
It’s not clear if people actually want to do this. It’s opened to discussion
and it is just a suggestion.
If we now consider map, then the length of map (or filter or any other
generator based on an iterator) is the same as the iterator itself which could
be either infinite or non defined.
Cheers
> On 29 Nov 2018, at 06:06, Anders Hovmöller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> +1. Throwing away information is almost always a bad idea.
>>
>> "Almost always"? Let's take this seriously, and think about the
>> consequences if we actually believed that. If I created a series of
>> integers:
>
> “Almost". It’s part of my sentence. I have known about addition for many
> years in fact :)
>
> / Anders
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
