This package is not yet in the standard lib about more-itertools HOT 4 CLOSED

That might be a better question for the python-dev mailing list.

from more-itertools.

If you take a look at the source of flatten(), you'll see that chain() and chain.from_iterable() are the equivalents of flatten()—not too long, but not usually the names people look under, as the popularity of the Stack Overflow threads testify.

That said, I wouldn't mind at all if somebody wanted to write up a PEP to bring certain of these routines into the stdlib. I might even do it myself, but I can't promise a timeline right now.

This is the kind of bug report that brightens my morning. :-)

from more-itertools.

I would be surprised if this package is accepted as a stdlib module. Even a proposal to integrate just the recipes into the stdlib was rejected on the premise that most people don't need it, and the recipes are easy enough to copy/paste into existing code. I disagree with that sentiment, but I think it speaks to this issue.

Additionally, one detriment of a project becoming part of the stdlib is that it must not break backward compatibility (except in extreme cases) or add new features more frequently than every 18 month release cycle.

If this project were under my maintenance, I'd close this ticket pending a PEP under serious consideration. This request is not a bug of more_itertools, though it could be considered a "bug" under Python itself. Asking the maintainer to take on this effort is likely to become a huge distraction with little benefit.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but I'm seeking to share some of my experience in Python development to help the community best focus its few resources.

from more-itertools.

❤️ more-itertools, but I'm with @jaraco on this one. Closing, but at least we're one pip install away from the default installation.

from more-itertools.