I'm really old ... I remember thinking how clever attrgetter() was when it was after to Python 2.4.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019, 7:51 PM David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote: > You could use the time machine: > https://docs.python.org/3/library/operator.html > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019, 11:57 AM Samuel Li <samuel....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Don't know if this has been suggested before. Instead of writing >> something like >> >> >>> map(lambda x: x.upper(), ['a', 'b', 'c']) >> >> I suggest this syntax: >> >>> map(.upper(), ['a', 'b', 'c']) >> >> This would also work for attributes: >> >>> map(.real, [1j, 2, 3+4j]) >> >> Internally, this would require translating >> >> .attribute -> lambda x: x.attribute >> >> and >> >> .method(*args, **kwargs) -> lambda x: x.method(*args, **kwargs) >> >> This translation should only take place where a "normal" attribute lookup >> makes no sense (throws a SyntaxError); i.e. foo.bar works as before, >> foo(.bar) would previously throw a SyntaxError, so the new syntax applies >> and the .bar is interpreted as an attrgetter. >> >> This is of course only a cosmetic improvement over operator.attrgetter >> and operator.methodcaller, but I think it's nice enough to warrant >> consideration. >> >> If you like this idea or think it's utter garbage, feel free to discuss. >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-ideas mailing list >> Python-ideas@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >> >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
