Paul Moore <pf_moore at yahoo.co.uk> writes: > [Phillip J. Eby] >> Yes. Really the whole extract thing isn't that useful, except to get >> extra speed over using 'lambda x: x.foo' or whatever, which is what >> I'd probably use in any code that wasn't composing functions or >> compiling an OO query language. :) > > [Thomas Heller] >> Hm, couldn't "lambda ob: ob.foo.bar" return exactly the same thing >> as > >> "extract(extract(attr='foo'), attr='bar')" > >> ? In other words: return specialized C implemented functions for >> simple lambda expressions? > > I agree with Thomas - rather than adding yet more specialised > functions, it would seem more sensible to optimize lambda - probably > via special cases like this. One question that remains is: do a handful of these specialized functions make it possible to replace the remaining uses lambda completely? Looking at parts of my codebase nearly all uses of lambda are 'lambda self: self.someattr'. The remaining occurences have not yet been ported to the idioms of newer Pythons. Thomas
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