Jean-Paul Calderone exarkun at divmod.com
Fri Feb 3 17:31:44 CET 2006

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] any support for a methodcaller HOF?
• Next message: [Python-Dev] any support for a methodcaller HOF?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 07:00:26 -0800, Alex Martelli <aleaxit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Feb 3, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>    ...
>> use itemgetter and friends but the "correct" way of doing a
>> defferred "x[1]"
>> *should* let you write "x[1]" in the code. This is my main
>> opposition to
>> partial/itemgetter/attrgetter/methodcaller: they allow deferred
>> execution
>> using a syntax which is not equivalent to that of immediate execution.
>
>I understand your worry re the syntax issue.  So what about Michael
>Hudson's "placeholder class" idea, where X[1] returns the callable
>that will do x[1] when called, etc?  Looks elegant to me...
>

FWIW,

<http://cvs.twistedmatrix.com/cvs/sandbox/glyph/eacher.py?view=markup&rev=12804>
<http://cvs.twistedmatrix.com/cvs/sandbox/cake.py?view=markup&rev=12804>

Jean-Paul

---

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] any support for a methodcaller HOF?
• Next message: [Python-Dev] any support for a methodcaller HOF?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list