Josiah Carlson wrote: > Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If we're going to move away from the itemgetter() and attrgetter() > > style, then we should be consistent about it and provide a solution > > (or solutions) that answers all of these problems: > > obj.attr > > obj.attr(*args, **kwargs) > > obj[key] > > I'm not sure that there is a clean/obvious way to do this. > > I thought that: > operator.attrgetter() was for obj.attr > operator.itemgetter() was for obj[integer_index]
My point exactly. If we're sticking to the same style, I would expect that for obj.method(*args, **kwargs) we would have something like: operator.methodcaller('method', *args, **kwargs) The proposal by Martin v. Löwis is that this should instead look something like: methodcall.method(*args, **kwargs) which is a departure from the current attrgetter() and itemgetter() idiom. I'm not objecting to this approach, by the way. I think with the right name, it would probably read well. I just think that we should try to be consistent one way or the other. If we go with Martin v. Löwis's suggestion, I would then expect that the corrolates to attrgetter() and itemgetter() would also be included, e.g.: attrget.attr (for obj.attr) itemget[key] (for obj[key]) STeVe -- You can wordify anything if you just verb it. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com