On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 12:35:28PM -0600, Tim Peters wrote:
> I would _much_ rather write - and read:
>
> a = first(iterable, default)
>
> than
>
> a = take(1, iterable, default)[0]
>
> for much the same reasons I'd much rather write and read "2" than
> "int(10 / 5)" ;-)
Fair enough. If you're binding directly to a result, you can avoid the
subscripting by using sequence unpacking, which might look nicer:
(a,) = take(1, iterable, default)
or write your own one-liner helper :-)
I'm thinking that, given Raymond's long reluctance to add additional
functions to itertools, it might be easier to add `take` since it is a
strictly more powerful function than `first`. If we can only get one,
I'd go for `take` since it can do everything `first` would do and more.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/QXW5SCDK6R7ZDPZNO4OEE3FGAXZNOY5O/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
