`itertools.all_equal`

[Stefan2 (Stefan)]

@hypernova

The current implementation also does not make use of short-circuit return logic, which means it would be expected to perform poorly on large input.

That’s not true.

@hypernova

I can’t think of any disadvantages to doing so.

Code (including tests) needs to be written, reviewed, documented, maintained, makes the codebase larger and thus more complicated, may introduce bugs, takes time to compile, tests take time to run. And unlike a recipe, an official function can’t easily be changed anymore, due to people relying on it (not that I think it would get changed, but that’s a general concern).

To me, it feels too narrow. On GitHub, you wrote “all_equal […] really is just for a single purpose, like all and any”. That’s a ridiculous comparison. Those two are very useful in many cases. That’s why they’re not just in the standard library but even among the built-ins.

Similar sentiment from your earlier topic :

@alicederyn

@hypernova

is the community satisfied with the existing methods of implementing this simple operation

I for one am. If a general-purpose function that performed as fast as an existing solution for this problem and had other real-world uses were proposed, that would be interesting, but making one that realistically is only useful for all_equal does not seem valuable.