python-peps/pep-0201.txt

237 lines
7.5 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

PEP: 201
Title: Lockstep Iteration
Version: $Revision$
Author: bwarsaw@beopen.com (Barry A. Warsaw)
Python-Version: 2.0
Status: Accepted
Created: 13-Jul-2000
2000-07-27 15:17:36 -04:00
Post-History: 27-Jul-2000
Introduction
This PEP describes the `lockstep iteration' proposal. This PEP
tracks the status and ownership of this feature, slated for
introduction in Python 2.0. It contains a description of the
feature and outlines changes necessary to support the feature.
This PEP summarizes discussions held in mailing list forums, and
provides URLs for further information, where appropriate. The CVS
revision history of this file contains the definitive historical
record.
Motivation
Standard for-loops in Python iterate over every element in a
sequence until the sequence is exhausted[1]. However, for-loops
iterate over only a single sequence, and it is often desirable to
loop over more than one sequence in a lock-step fashion. In other
words, in a way such that nthe i-th iteration through the loop
returns an object containing the i-th element from each sequence.
The common idioms used to accomplish this are unintuitive. This
PEP proposes a standard way of performing such iterations by
introducing a new builtin function called `zip'.
While the primary motivation for zip() comes from lock-step
iteration, by implementing zip() as a built-in function, it has
additional utility in contexts other than for-loops.
Lockstep For-Loops
Lockstep for-loops are non-nested iterations over two or more
sequences, such that at each pass through the loop, one element
from each sequence is taken to compose the target. This behavior
can already be accomplished in Python through the use of the map()
built-in function:
>>> a = (1, 2, 3)
>>> b = (4, 5, 6)
>>> for i in map(None, a, b): print i
...
(1, 4)
(2, 5)
(3, 6)
>>> map(None, a, b)
[(1, 4), (2, 5), (3, 6)]
The for-loop simply iterates over this list as normal.
While the map() idiom is a common one in Python, it has several
disadvantages:
- It is non-obvious to programmers without a functional
programming background.
- The use of the magic `None' first argument is non-obvious.
- It has arbitrary, often unintended, and inflexible semantics
when the lists are not of the same length: the shorter sequences
are padded with `None'.
>>> c = (4, 5, 6, 7)
>>> map(None, a, c)
[(1, 4), (2, 5), (3, 6), (None, 7)]
For these reasons, several proposals were floated in the Python
2.0 beta time frame for syntactic support of lockstep for-loops.
Here are two suggestions:
for x in seq1, y in seq2:
# stuff
for x, y in seq1, seq2:
# stuff
Neither of these forms would work, since they both already mean
something in Python and changing the meanings would break existing
code. All other suggestions for new syntax suffered the same
problem, or were in conflict with other another proposed feature
called `list comprehensions' (see pep-0202.txt).
The Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to introduce a new built-in sequence
generator function, available in the __builtin__ module. This
function is to be called `zip' and has the following signature:
zip(seqa, [seqb, [...]])
zip() takes one or more sequences and weaves their elements
together, just as map(None, ...) does with sequences of equal
length. The weaving stops when the shortest sequence is
exhausted.
Return Value
zip() returns a real Python list, the same way map() does.
Examples
Here are some examples, based on the reference implementation
below.
>>> a = (1, 2, 3, 4)
>>> b = (5, 6, 7, 8)
>>> c = (9, 10, 11)
>>> d = (12, 13)
>>> zip(a, b)
[(1, 5), (2, 6), (3, 7), (4, 8)]
>>> zip(a, d)
[(1, 12), (2, 13)]
>>> zip(a, b, c, d)
[(1, 5, 9, 12), (2, 6, 10, 13)]
Note that when the sequences are of the same length, zip() is
reversible:
>>> a = (1, 2, 3)
>>> b = (4, 5, 6)
>>> x = zip(a, b)
>>> y = zip(*x) # alternatively, apply(zip, x)
>>> z = zip(*y) # alternatively, apply(zip, y)
>>> x
[(1, 4), (2, 5), (3, 6)]
>>> y
[(1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6)]
>>> z
[(1, 4), (2, 5), (3, 6)]
>>> x == z
1
It is not possible to reverse zip this way when the sequences are
not all the same length.
Reference Implementation
Here is a reference implementation, in Python of the zip()
built-in function. This will be replaced with a C implementation
after final approval.
def zip(*args):
if not args:
raise TypeError('zip() expects one or more sequence arguments')
ret = []
i = 0
try:
while 1:
item = []
for s in args:
item.append(s[i])
ret.append(tuple(item))
i = i + 1
except IndexError:
return ret
BDFL Pronouncements
Note: the BDFL refers to Guido van Rossum, Python's Benevolent
Dictator For Life.
- The function's name. An earlier version of this PEP included an
open issue listing 20+ proposed alternative names to zip(). In
the face of no overwhelmingly better choice, the BDFL strongly
prefers zip() due to its Haskell[2] heritage. See version 1.7
of this PEP for the list of alternatives.
- zip() shall be a built-in function.
- Optional padding. An earlier version of this PEP proposed an
optional `pad' keyword argument, which would be used when the
argument sequences were not the same length. This is similar
behavior to the map(None, ...) semantics except that the user
would be able to specify pad object. This has been rejected by
the BDFL in favor of always truncating to the shortest sequence,
because of the KISS principle. If there's a true need, it is
easier to add later. If it is not needed, it would still be
impossible to delete it in the future.
- Lazy evaluation. An earlier version of this PEP proposed that
zip() return a built-in object that performed lazy evaluation
using __getitem__() protocol. This has been strongly rejected
by the BDFL in favor of returning a real Python list. If lazy
evaluation is desired in the future, the BDFL suggests an xzip()
function be added.
- zip() with no arguments. the BDFL strongly prefers this raise a
TypeError exception.
- zip() with one argument. the BDFL strongly prefers that this
return a list of 1-tuples.
- Inner and outer container control. An earlier version of this
PEP contains a rather lengthy discussion on a feature that some
people wanted, namely the ability to control what the inner and
outer container types were (they are tuples and list
respectively in this version of the PEP). Given the simplified
API and implementation, this elaboration is rejected. For a
more detailed analysis, see version 1.7 of this PEP.
References
[1] http://www.python.org/doc/current/ref/for.html
[2] http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/standard-prelude.html#$vzip
Greg Wilson's questionaire on proposed syntax to some CS grad students
http://www.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2000-July/013139.html
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
End: