"Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
>
> > And we have solved the "map, filter and reduce are going away! Let's
> > all weep together" problem with one strike!
>
> I'm not sure if you're wildly enthusiastic, or very sarcastic.
>
> I'm not sure which I should be either ...
>
> The thought does appeal to me - especially func.partial(args). I don't
> see any advantage to func.map(args) over func(*args), and it loses
> functionality in comparison with map(func, args) (passing the function
> as a separate reference).
I was under the impression that:
fcn.<old builtin name>(...)
would perform equivalently as
<old builtin name>(fcn, ...)
does now.
So all the following would be equivalent...
func.map(args)
map(func, args)
[func(i) for i in args]
Me, I still use map, so seeing it as fcn.map(...) instead of map(fcn,...)
sounds good to me...though it does have the ugly rub of suggesting that
None.map/filter should exist, which I'm not really happy about.
In regards to the instance __call__ method, it seems reasonable to
require users to implement their own map/filter/reduce call.
- Josiah
_______________________________________________
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
