Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 07:00:26 -0800, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>On Feb 3, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: >> ... >>> use itemgetter and friends but the "correct" way of doing a >>> defferred "x[1]" >>> *should* let you write "x[1]" in the code. This is my main >>> opposition to >>> partial/itemgetter/attrgetter/methodcaller: they allow deferred >>> execution >>> using a syntax which is not equivalent to that of immediate execution. >> >>I understand your worry re the syntax issue. So what about Michael >>Hudson's "placeholder class" idea, where X[1] returns the callable >>that will do x[1] when called, etc? Looks elegant to me...
I'd just like to point out here that I only mentioned this class; I didn't suggest it for anything :) > FWIW, > > <http://cvs.twistedmatrix.com/cvs/sandbox/glyph/eacher.py?view=markup&rev=12804> > <http://cvs.twistedmatrix.com/cvs/sandbox/cake.py?view=markup&rev=12804> Yow. My implementation was somewhere in between those for length, I think (and pre-dated new style classes, which probably changes things). Cheers, mwh -- I'm sorry, was my bias showing again? :-) -- William Tanksley, 13 May 2000 _______________________________________________ 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
