Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings at roundpoint.com> wrote:
> Let me try to explain myself more clearly. If strings were instances
> of a class String, I could say String.foo to get the unbound string
> method foo; as it is, there happens to be a string module so I can say
> string.foo to get a function that works as if it were the unbound
> string method (except where foo = join). For other sequences such as
> lists, there is no such module to help. To pick a better example, I
> can't say:
>
> map(types.DictType.keys, [{'a':1,'b':2,'c':3}, {'d':4,'e':5,'f':6}])
>
> and get back something like:
>
> [['b', 'c', 'a'], ['f', 'd', 'e']]
Doing this is a bad idea. If you map an unbound method, any
polymorphism is lost (e.g., a UserDict instance in the list passed to
map would not work).
--
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