On 8/21/06, Michael Urman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/21/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like map(f, a, b) to be the same as to (f(*x) for x in zip(a, b)) > > so we have to explain less. (And I think even map(f, *args) === (f(*x) > > for x in zip(*args)).) > > Should map(None, a, b) == zip(a, b), leaving python with multiple ways > to do one thing? Or should the surprising but useful map(None, ...) > behavior disappear or become even more surprising by padding? Is there > any reason at all for map to take multiple sequences now that we have > starmap and (i)zip?
FWIW, I'm ambivalent as to whether map() accepts multiple sequences, but I'm strongly in favor of map(None, ....) disappearing. Similarly, I'd want to see filter(None, ...) go away, too; fastpathing the case of filter(bool, ....) will achieve the same performance benefit. Collin Winter _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
