Nick Coghlan wrote: > Alex Martelli wrote: >> On Mar 12, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ian Bicking wrote: >> ... >>> memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not >>> so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module >>> that >>> is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more vague). >>> partial would make just as much sense in functools as in functional. >> >> Couldn't we merge functools and functional into just one (user- >> visible) module? The distinction between what goes into one vs the >> other is exceedingly subtle and poor users will be guessing as to >> what's where. If we need a mixed module with something in C and >> something in Python, we can do it the usual way, func.py wrapping >> _func.pyd (or .so or whatever)... > > > I agree it makes sense to have "decorator", "memoize", "deprecated" and > "partial" all being members of the same module, whether the name be > "functools" or "functional" (although I have a slight preference for > "functools" due to the parallel with "itertools"). +1 from me. I'll happily make the according changes if that reaches a consensus. > On the question of whether or not deprecated fits in as a function tool, I > know I'd tend to only use it on functions (to deprecate a class, I'd simply > decorate the class's __init__ or __new__ method). I suppose it would be okay, since as a decorator it can only be applied to functions. In PEP 356, there is even a suggestion to "add builtin @deprecated decorator?". Cheers, Georg
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