On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:55:18 +0100, Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:43:42 +0100, Michael Foord
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>This wouldn't be a problem except that everyone has a different idea of
>>those requirements:).
You didn't r
On 9/22/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Bob Ippolito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/22/06, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:05:19PM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > > > I think instead of adding a flatten function perhaps we should thi
[Michael Foord]
>I have a suggestion for a new Python built in function: 'flatten'.
> ...
> There are several different possible approaches in pure Python,
> but is this an idea that has legs ?
No legs.
It has been discussed ad naseum on comp.lang.python. People seem to
enjoy writing their own
"Bob Ippolito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:05:19PM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > > I think instead of adding a flatten function perhaps we should think
> > > about adding something like Erlang's "iolist" support.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:43:42 +0100, Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> I have a suggestion for a new Python built in function: 'flatten'.
>>
>
> This seems superficially like a good idea, but I think adding it to Python
> anywhere would do a lot more
On 9/22/06, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:05:19PM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > On 9/22/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > I have a suggestion for a ne
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:43:42 +0100, Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a suggestion for a new Python built in function: 'flatten'.
This seems superficially like a good idea, but I think adding it to Python
anywhere would do a lot more harm than good. I can see that consensus is
a
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:05:19PM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I have a suggestion for a new Python built in function: 'flatten'.
> >
> > This has been brought
On 9/22/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have a suggestion for a new Python built in function: 'flatten'.
>
> This has been brought up many times. I'm -1 on its inclusion, if only
> because it's a fairly simple
On 9/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael> There are several different possible approaches in pure Python,Michael> but is this an idea that has legs ?Why not add it to itertools? Then, if you need a true list, just calllist() on the returned iterator.
Yeah, this is a
Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have a suggestion for a new Python built in function: 'flatten'.
This has been brought up many times. I'm -1 on its inclusion, if only
because it's a fairly simple 9-line function (at least the trivial
version I came up with), and n
Michael> There are several different possible approaches in pure Python,
Michael> but is this an idea that has legs ?
Why not add it to itertools? Then, if you need a true list, just call
list() on the returned iterator.
Skip
___
Python-Dev ma
Hello all,
I have a suggestion for a new Python built in function: 'flatten'.
This would (as if it needs explanation) take a single sequence, where
each element can be a sequence (or iterable ?) nested to an arbitrary
depth. It would return a flattened list. A useful restriction could be
that
13 matches
Mail list logo
