Steve Holden wrote:
> Now, see, that's the thing. The more ways there are to write the same
> program, the harder any given program will be to understand.
>
> This is indeed a fairly deliberate approach in the Python world, and
> contrasts with languages where readability is low because of the
> m
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:55:35 +0100, "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>so how equivalent must something be to be equivalent?
>
quack, quack? ;-)
Regards,
Bengt Richter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
yet another :-)
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>
> > Then why document itertools.izip() as it is? The documentation there is
> > explicit enough to know that izip(it, it) will work as intended. Should
> > we make the documentation there less explicit to discourage people from
> > u
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Then why document itertools.izip() as it is? The documentation there is
> explicit enough to know that izip(it, it) will work as intended. Should
> we make the documentation there less explicit to discourage people from
> using the izip(it, it) idiom?
depends on whether
