- Python Home
- About
- News
- Documentation
- Downloads
- Community
- Foundation
- Developer's Guide
- Issue Tracker
- Issues
- Summaries
- User
- Administration
- Help
Message66711
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | scott.dial |
|---|---|
| Recipients | rhettinger, scott.dial |
| Date | 2008-05-12.06:35:23 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.04031275 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1210574124.76.0.659809423341.issue2831@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
As it stands, enumerate() already takes a "sequence" keyword as an alternative to the first positional argument (although this seems to be completely undocumented). So, as you say, METH_O is a no go. I agree with you in that my original complaint with the positional argument was that enumerate(iterable, start) was "backwards." My other argument was that a large number of these iterator utility functions are foo(*iterable) and upon seeing enumerate(foo, bar), a reader might be inclined to assume it was equivalent to enumerate(chain(foo, bar)). |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-05-12 06:35:25 | scott.dial | set | spambayes_score: 0.0403127 -> 0.04031275 recipients: + scott.dial, rhettinger |
| 2008-05-12 06:35:24 | scott.dial | set | spambayes_score: 0.0403127 -> 0.0403127 messageid: <1210574124.76.0.659809423341.issue2831@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-05-12 06:35:24 | scott.dial | link | issue2831 messages |
| 2008-05-12 06:35:23 | scott.dial | create | |

