Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> writes:
> So again, here we have a mechanism that's rather generic (lambda)
> which is frequently used in a few stylized patterns (to extract an
> attribute or field). So Raymond's new functions attrgetter and
> itemgetter (whose names I cannot seem to remember :-) take care of
> these.
>
> But, at least for attrgetter, I am slightly unhappy with the outcome,
> because the attribute name is now expressed as a string literal rather
> than using attribute notation. This makes it harder to write
> automated tools that check or optimize code. (For itemgetter it
> doesn't really matter, since the index is a literal either way.)
>
> So, while I'm not particularly keen on lambda, I'm not that keen on
> attrgetter either. But what could be better? All I can think of are
> slightly shorter but even more crippled forms of lambda; for example,
> we could invent a new keyword XXX so that the expression (XXX.foo) is
> equivalent to (lambda self: self.foo). This isn't very attractive.
Doesn't have to be a keyword... I implemented something like this
years ago and then ditched it when list comps appeared.
It would let you do things like
>>> map(X + 1, range(2))
[1, 2, 3]
too, IIRC.
Cheers,
mwh
--
> With Python you can start a thread, but you can't stop it. Sorry.
> You'll have to wait until reaches the end of execution.
So, just the same as c.l.py, then?
-- Cliff Wells & Steve Holden, comp.lang.python
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