Steven Bethard wrote:
>>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)
You might be missing one aspect of attrgetter, though. I can have
f = operator.attrgetter('name', 'age')
and then f(person) gives me (person.name, person.age). Likewise for
itemgetter(1,2,3). Extending this to methodcaller is not natural;
you would have
x=methodcaller(('open',['foo','r'],{}),('read',[100],{}),
('close',[],{}))
and then
x(somestorage)
(I know this is not the typical open/read/close pattern, where you
would normally call read on what open returns)
It might be that there is no use case for a multi-call methodgetter;
I just point out that a single-call methodgetter would *not* be
in the same style as attrgetter and itemgetter.
> attrget.attr (for obj.attr)
> itemget[key] (for obj[key])
I agree that would be consistent. These also wouldn't allow to get
multiple items and indices. I don't know what the common use for
attrgetter is: one or more attributes?
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
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
