On 2/6/06, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > And I think that a deferred object would help with one of > lambda's biggest uses and made its loss totally reasonable. The ambiguity inherent from the perspective of a deferred object makes a general one impractical. Both map(Deferred().attribute, seq) and map(Deferred().method(arg), seq) look the same - how does the object know that the first case it should return the attribute of the first element of seq when called, but in the second it should wait for the next call when it will call method(arg) on the first element of seq? Since there's also no way to spell "lambda y: foo(x, y, z)" on a simple deferred object, it's strictly less powerful. If the current Python lambda's functionality is desired, there is no better pythonic way to spell it. There are plenty of new syntactic options that help highlight its expression nature, but are they worth the change? MIchael -- Michael Urman http://www.tortall.net/mu/blog/
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