Alex Martelli wrote:
>> A class I wrote (and lost) ages ago was a "placeholder" class, so if
>> 'X' was an instance of this class, "X + 1" was roughly equivalent to
>> "lambda x:x+1" and "X.method(zip, zop)" was roughly equivalent to your
>> "methodcaller("method", zip, zop)". I threw it away when listcomps
>> got implemented. Not sure why I mention it now, something about your
>> post made me think of it...
>
> Such a placeholder would certainly offer better syntax and more power
> than methodcaller (and itemgetter and attrgetter, too). A lovely idea!
Yep. And it would make Python stand out of the crowd another time ;)
The question is: is it "serious" and deterministic enough to be builtin?
Georg
_______________________________________________
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
