Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

in that case you presented maybe it is more readeable but considering that lists as ["a","b"] can be inputted, not just using range, the result might be as it was. change x y people are happy change y and z people hate it Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer, Mauritius abdurrahmaanjanhangeer.wordpress.com

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 08:03:32PM +0200, Jason H wrote: > But really, I've learned a few things along the way. Though nothing to > convince me that I'm wrong or it's a bad idea. It's just not liked by > the greybeards, which I can appreciate. "here's some new punk kid, get > off my lawn!"

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On 09/15/2017 11:03 AM, Jason H wrote: From: "Steven D'Aprano" >> Um... what's in it for *us*? What benefit do we get? > How that question is answered, depends on who is 'us'? If you're a bunch of > python purist greybeards, then conceivably nothing. How about refugees

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On 9/15/17 2:03 PM, Jason H wrote: It's just not liked by the greybeards, which I can appreciate. "here's some new punk kid, get off my lawn!" type of mentality. Dunning-Kruger, etc. I'm not sure if you meant this tongue-in-cheek or not.  The main problem with your proposal is that it would

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 at 12:24 PM > From: "Steven D'Aprano" <st...@pearwood.info> > To: python-ideas@python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better > > Jason, > > I'm sorry if you feel that everyone is piling on you to poo-p

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

Jason, I'm sorry if you feel that everyone is piling on you to poo-poo your ideas, but we've heard it all before. To you it might seem like "peaceful coexistence", but we already have peaceful coexistence. Python exists, and Javascript exists (to say nothing of thousands of other languages,

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On Sep 15, 2017 7:23 AM, "Jason H" wrote: Another pain point is python uses [].append() and JS uses [].join() Having a wrapper for append would be helpful. There should be one, and only one, obvious way to do it. And for that matter, why isn't append/extend a global? I can add

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

> And for that matter, why isn't append/extend a global? I can add things to lots of different collections. lists, sets, strings... No, append is relevant when the collection is ordered. You update dictionnaries, you make unions of sets, and you append lists to another ones. These operations are

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

I'm going to respond to a few replies with this one. > > Because join apply on a string, and strings are defined by the str class, > > not by a specific protocol (unlike iterables). > > Join actually used to only be available as a function (string.join in > Python 2.x). However, nobody could

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

For these examples, you shouldn't be using map at all. On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 11:10:39 AM UTC-4, Jason H wrote: > > The format of map seems off. Coming from JS, all the functions come > second. I think this approach is superior. > > Currently: > map(lambda x: chr(ord('a')+x),

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On 15 September 2017 at 03:38, Antoine Rozo wrote: >> Why is it ','.join(iterable), why isn't there join(',', iterable) > > Because join apply on a string, and strings are defined by the str class, > not by a specific protocol (unlike iterables). Join actually used to

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

> Why? I can iterate over a string. [c for c in 'abc'] It certainly behaves like one... I'd say this is inconsistent because there is no __iter__() and next() on the str class. Yes, strings are iterables. You can use a string as argument of str.join method. But only strings can be used as

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Jason H wrote: > >>> Why is it ','.join(iterable), why isn't there join(',', iterable) > >> Because join apply on a string, and strings are defined by the str class, >> not by a specific protocol (unlike iterables). > Why? I can iterate over a

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

>> Why is it ','.join(iterable), why isn't there join(',', iterable)   > Because join apply on a string, and strings are defined by the str class, not > by a specific protocol (unlike iterables). Why? I can iterate over a string. [c for c in 'abc'] It certainly behaves like one... I'd say this

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

> Why is it ','.join(iterable), why isn't there join(',', iterable) Because join apply on a string, and strings are defined by the str class, not by a specific protocol (unlike iterables). 2017-09-14 18:43 GMT+02:00 MRAB : > On 2017-09-14 03:55, Steven D'Aprano

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On 2017-09-14 03:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:05:26PM +0200, Jason H wrote: > And look, map() even works with all of them, without inheritance, > registration, and whatnot. It's so easy! Define easy. Opposite of hard or difficult. You want to map a function?

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Jason H wrote: > Python is weird in that there are these special magical globals that > operate on many things. Jason, that weirdness is actually a deep part of Python's philsophy. The language is very protocol driven. It's not just the built-in

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:05:26PM +0200, Jason H wrote: > > And look, map() even works with all of them, without inheritance, > > registration, and whatnot. It's so easy! > > Define easy. Opposite of hard or difficult. You want to map a function? map(function, values) is all it takes. You

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 05:09:37PM +0200, Jason H wrote: > The format of map seems off. Coming from JS, all the functions come > second. I think this approach is superior. Obviously Javascript has got it wrong. map() applies the function to the given values, so the function comes first. That

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 3:57 PM > From: "Stefan Behnel" <stefan...@behnel.de> > To: python-ideas@python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better > > Jason H schrieb am 13.09.2017 um 17:54: > > I'm rather surprised that there is

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

Jason H schrieb am 13.09.2017 um 17:54: > I'm rather surprised that there isn't a Iterable class which dict and list > derive from. > If that were added to just dict and list, I think it would cover 98% of > cases, and adding Iterable would be reasonable in the remaining scenarios. Would you

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Jason H wrote: > > Thanks for the insights. > I don't think it would be that breaking: > > def remap_map(a1, a2): > if hasattr(a1, '__call__'): > return map(a1, a2) > elif hasattr(a2, '__call__'): > return map(a2,a1) > else: >

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 11:23 AM > From: "Edward Minnix" <egregius...@gmail.com> > To: "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com> > Cc: Python-Ideas <python-ideas@python.org> > Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better > > While

Re: [Python-ideas] Make map() better

While I agree that the method calling syntax is nicer, I disagree with flipping the argument error for three main reasons. First: it violates the signature entirely The signature to map is map(function, *iterables). Python’s map is more like Haskell’s zipWith. Making the function last would

[Python-ideas] Make map() better

The format of map seems off. Coming from JS, all the functions come second. I think this approach is superior. Currently: map(lambda x: chr(ord('a')+x), range(26)) # ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y',