scarblac at pino.selwerd.nl wrote: > Christian Tanzer <tanzer at swing.co.at> wrote in comp.lang.python: > > > > "Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > My personal impression is that lambda is a (minor) > > > nuisance. Naming the code fragment that you want > > > to pass to some other function, by making it a > > > nested function, seems clearer & handier to me. > > > > What about using `map' to apply a method to each element in a list? > > > > Like in: > > > > map (lambda s : s.capitalize (), l) > > > > I wouldn't call a loop clearer in this case, despite the lambda. > > That is debatable, but the list comprehension is fine: > > [ s.capitalize() for s in l ] Yes, that is the best alternative. Hope I get rid of 1.5.2 soon. > > For strings, one could of course pass `string.capitalize' to `map'. > > Unfortunately, this loop hole exists only for strings, and the powers > > that be plan on making the string module obsolete, anyway. > > I really don't think they plan on that. IIRC a while ago there was quite some discussion on deprecating the string module with the BDFL clearly in favor of doing so. -- Christian Tanzer tanzer at swing.co.at Glasauergasse 32 Tel: +43 1 876 62 36 A-1130 Vienna, Austria Fax: +43 1 877 66 92
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4