[Python-Dev] Efficient predicates for the standard library
Gareth McCaughan
gmccaughan at synaptics-uk.com
Mon Oct 6 08:06:18 EDT 2003
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Mon Oct 6 08:06:18 EDT 2003
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Efficient predicates for the standard library
- Next message: Keyword-only arguments (Re: [Python-Dev] Efficient predicates for the standard library)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I said: >> def any(pred, *iterables): >> >> I think the ability to work with multiple sequences (and >> not to have to use the argument order iter1, pred, iter2, ...) >> is more important than the ability to avoid typing "bool,". Chris Stork replied: > Raymond would tell you to use either chain() or izip() on your > *iterables. ;-) This would also make clear what is actually meant. Ugh. :-) >> Another option would be >> >> def any(*iterables, pred=bool): >>>> def any(*iterables, pred=bool): > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > File "<stdin>", line 1 > def any(*iterables, pred=bool): > ^ > SyntaxError: invalid syntax Aieee! I was so sure you could do that, I didn't bother checking. In fact my thoughts went like this: "Hang on; can you do that? ... Yes, of course you can. I'm just thinking of Lisp, where you can't because of the way keyword args work there. That's a nice benefit of Python's less minimal syntax, isn't it?". How annoying. -- g
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Efficient predicates for the standard library
- Next message: Keyword-only arguments (Re: [Python-Dev] Efficient predicates for the standard library)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list