How about each() instead of zip()?

[Jeff Bauer]

Hamish Lawson wrote:
> A number of the proposals for a better name for the nascent
> zip() function seem to employ the notion of taking items from
> *each* of the constituent sequences. So I thought: how about
> each() itself as the name of the function?

The naming issue for Lockstep iteration is essentially
over.  See PEP 201:

http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/pep-0201.html

- 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.


Jeff Bauer
Rubicon Research