Curious about library inclusion

[Antoon Pardon]

On 11/10/19 15:48, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 10/10/2019 12:40, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> About including piped iterators:
>>     
>> http://code.activestate.com/recipes/580625-collection-pipeline-in-python/
>>
>> On 10/10/19 13:00, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> As another measure, look at various other libraries on PyPI and ask
>>> yourself why *this* library needs to be in the stdlib more than those
>>> others. The answer to that question would be a good start for an
>>> argument to include the library.
>>
>> Well my answer would be that this library wouldn't add functionality
>> but rather would allow IMO for a more readable coding style.
>>
>> If you split the work to be done over mulitple generators I find it
>> easier to understand when I read something like:
>>
>>      for item in some_file | gen1 | gen2 | gen3:
>>          ...
>>
>> than when I read something like:
>>
>>      for item in gen3(gen2(gen1(somefile))):
>>          ...
>
> With my ever-so-reactionary hat on, I have to say I'm the other way
> round.  With "gen3(gen2(gen1(somefile)))" it's pretty obvious what's
> going on -- nested function or generator calls, probably the latter
> from the name.  With "somefile|gen1|gen2|gen3" I need more context to
> kick my expectations out of the more common meaning of "|" as "or".
>
> Yes, context demands that the "|" in your first example can't actually
> be an "or".  It still causes a moment of logical disconnect (currently
> a long moment) that throws me out of understanding what your code is
> doing overall into what this line means in particular.  It's exactly
> like coming across an unusual phrasing or iffy grammar in a piece of
> writing; you get thrown out of the reading experience by having to
> concentrate on the individual words.

But isn't this just a matter of experience? For example does it still
causes a moment of logical disconnect when you see a '+' used for
concatenation? For me the use of '|' is very similar to how it is used
by unix shells. Would the use of an other operator ease this disconnect
for you, maybe '>>', or wouldn't that make a difference?

-- 
Antoon.