On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:24:29 +0100, Peter Harris <scav at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > I think we'll see if partial() is a useful enough feature to be worth optimising once it > actually makes it into a build and gets used. I for one use the beast quite allot! :) > Mostly I think nesting many layers of partial(), or optimising the implementation with > that in mind will not be a win for clarity, therefore a net loss however fast you can > make it. well, about clarity, the implementation I posted above is actual code form the library I am writing (pli.sf.net), I could write a clearer and *prettier* version with the same functionality if desired... ...why intentionally make an under-designed version when adding some minor optimisations would not impact either clarity nor efficiency (IMHO). > By the way, I think 'right curry' is just a broken idea from the point of view of > code readability. (I know the n'th argument is '2', but 'n' will depend on how > many arguments are passed at run time!) The PEP doesn't propose to implement > such a monster, or call partial() a curry at all, let alone a 'left' one. in part I do agree, but I had to implement both as going the other way would have been a big (and I do mean BIG) loss in both clarity an flexibility. --- Alex.
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