[Python-Dev] Lockstep iteration - eureka!

[Tim Peters]

[Tim]
> But if you add seq.items(), you had better add seq.keys() too, and
> seq.values() as a synonym for seq[:].  I guess the perceived
> advantage of adding seq.items() is that it supplies yet another
> incredibly slow and convoluted way to get at the for-loop index?
> "Ah, that's the ticket!  Let's allocate gazillabytes of storage and
> compute all the indexes into a massive data structure up front, and
> then we can use the loop index that's already sitting there for
> free anyway to index into that and get back a redundant copy of
> itself!" <wink>.

[Peter Schneider-Kamp]]
> That's a -1, right? <0.1 wink>

-0 if you also add .keys() and .values() (if you're going to
hypergeneralize, don't go partway nuts -- then it's both more general than
it should be yet still not as general as people will expect).

-1 if it's *just* seq.items().

+1 on an "indexing" clause (the BDFL liked that enough to implement it a few
years ago, but it didn't go in then because he found some random putz who
had used "indexing" as a vrbl name; but if doesn't need to be a keyword,
even that lame (ask Just <wink>) objection goes away).

sqrt(-1) on Barry's generator tease, because that's an imaginary proposal at
this stage of the game.