RetroSearch Browse

Fri Feb 3 18:31:00 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/060370.html

Alex Martelli wrote:

>> A class I wrote (and lost) ages ago was a "placeholder" class, so if
>> 'X' was an instance of this class, "X + 1" was roughly equivalent to
>> "lambda x:x+1" and "X.method(zip, zop)" was roughly equivalent to your
>> "methodcaller("method", zip, zop)".  I threw it away when listcomps
>> got implemented.  Not sure why I mention it now, something about your
>> post made me think of it...
> 
> Such a placeholder would certainly offer better syntax and more power  
> than methodcaller (and itemgetter and attrgetter, too).  A lovely idea!

Yep. And it would make Python stand out of the crowd another time ;)

The question is: is it "serious" and deterministic enough to be builtin?

Georg

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/060370.html below:

[Python-Dev] any support for a methodcaller HOF?