On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> If there is interest in this and no reason why it shouldn't be done, I
>> can write up an issue in the tracker and provide a patch.
>
> I think there is a tricky design choice to make wrt. argument passing.
> IIUC, you don't care much ab
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:43, Steven Bethard wrote:
>> Not sure I follow you here. It's not the __init__ that allows you to
>> do ``x()``, it's the fact that the class declares a __call__, right?
>>
> class C(object):
>> ... pass
>> .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:50:47 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:43, Steven Bethard wrote:
[snip]
Not sure I follow you here. It's not the __init__ that allows you to
do ``x()``, it's the fact that the class declares a __call__, right?
class C(object):
... pass
...
C._
> If there is interest in this and no reason why it shouldn't be done, I
> can write up an issue in the tracker and provide a patch.
I think there is a tricky design choice to make wrt. argument passing.
IIUC, you don't care much about arguments, so you could probably live
with
def call(o):
r
I believe the omission of call from the operator module is an
oversight, perhaps caused by the existence (when the operator module
was created) of apply. Since apply has been removed from 3.0, we
should add operator.call (with the same signature) back. It should be
a straightforward wrapper around
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:43, Steven Bethard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 05:35, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>>> Andrew Bennetts wrote:
A patch to add operator.caller(*args, **kwargs) may be a good idea. Your
example would then
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 05:35, Hrvoje Niksic 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 t
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 05:35, Hrvoje Niksic 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.__ca
On Tuesday 03 February 2009, Raghuram Devarakonda wrote:
> http://bugs.python.org/issue2204 refers to the same issue. Perhaps,
> you can upload your patch there in addition to adding any comments.
I attached the patch to the ticket. Do you have recommendations on
how to solve the uniformity issue
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'm somewhere between -0 and +0 though (-0 due to the lack of concrete
use cases, +0 because the improved consistency is appealing)
The operator module is one of the rare cases in python where consistency
is valued more than concrete use cases. But, for what it's worth, I
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
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Is there a reason why the operator module doesn't have an operator.call
> function?
My guess is that it was left out because it would have been redundant
given the existence of apply() in 2.x.
That argument no longer holds in 3.x of course, so operator.call may be
a reasona
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Is there a reason why the operator module doesn't have an operator.call
> function?
Python 2.6 adds operator.methodcaller. So you could use
operator.methodcaller('__call__'), but that's not really any better than
lambda x: x().
A patch to add operator.caller(*args, **kwa
Is there a reason why the operator module doesn't have an operator.call
function? It would seem logical to be able to write:
map(operator.call, lst)
which calls each object in lst, just like map(operator.neg, lst) negates
every object. Of course, operator.call is equivalent to lambda x: x(),
Mike Klaas wrote:
Do you need to append, or are you just looking to create/manipulate an
array with a bunch of c-float values?
Mostly real-life examples I've seen of this were creating an array from
C values obtained from an external source, such as an on-disk file, or
another process. The
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 06:50:44PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> The encoding information *is* available in the response headers, e.g.:
>
> - -- %< -
> $ wget -S --spider http://knuth.luther.e
16 matches
Mail list logo
