STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment:
Python 2.7 had apply(func, args, kwargs) which called func(*args, **kwargs). https://docs.python.org/2.7/library/functions.html#apply There is also functools.partial(func, *args, **kwargs)(*args2, **kwargs2) which calls func(*args, *args2, **kwargs, **kwargs2). https://docs.python.org/dev/library/functools.html#functools.partial operator.methodcaller(name, /, *args, **kwargs)(obj) calls getattr(obj, name)(*args, **kwargs). https://docs.python.org/dev/library/operator.html#operator.methodcaller I'm not convinced that operator.caller() would be useful to me. Why do you consider that it belongs to the stdlib? It is a common pattern? Did you see in this pattern in the current stdlib? Can't you easily implement such helper function in a few lines of Python? operator documentation says: "The operator module exports a set of efficient functions corresponding to the intrinsic operators of Python". I don't see how operator.caller() implements an existing "intrinsic operators of Python". methodcaller() can be implemented in 4 lines of Python, as shown in its documentation: --- def methodcaller(name, /, *args, **kwargs): def caller(obj): return getattr(obj, name)(*args, **kwargs) return caller --- ---------- nosy: +brett.cannon, rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue44019> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
