On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:43:10PM -0800, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal via Python-ideas wrote: > > > > Rather than using map in this way, I would recommend a list comprehension: > > Exactly! I really don’t get why folks want to use map() so much when > the comprehension syntax is often cleaner and easier. It was added for > a reason :-)
Comprehensions are great for avoiding the need to write verbose lambdas before calling map: map(lambda x: x + 1, numbers) (x + 1 for x in numbers) but you typically only save a few characters, and you don't even save that when the function already exists: map(str.upper, strings) (s.upper() for s in strings) So horses for courses. In my opinion, map() looks nicer when you are calling a pre-existing named function, and comprehensions look nicer when you have an expression involving operators which would otherwise require a lambda. -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
