On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 05:35, Hrvoje Niksic <hrvoje.nik...@avl.com> wrote: > Andrew Bennetts wrote: >> >> A patch to add operator.caller(*args, **kwargs) may be a good idea. Your >> example would then be: >> >> map(operator.caller(), lst) > > Regarding the name, note that I proposed operator.call (and > operator.__call__) because it corresponds to the __call__ special method, > which is analogous to how operator.neg corresponds to __neg__, operator.add > to __add__, etc. The term "caller" implies creation of a new object that > carries additional state, such as method name in operator.methodcaller, item > in operator.itemgetter, or attr in operator.attrgetter.
Part of the problem is the term 'call' is an overloaded term. Do you really mean only objects that define __call__? What about objects that define __init__ and thus can be called as well? If you mean the former than you have to make sure the docs are very clear about this; there is a reason we got rid of callable(). If you mean the latter then there is little benefit to the function since ``[x() for x in lst]`` gets you the same result as your map call. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
