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
