Movatterモバイル変換

[Python-Dev] PEP 309: Partial method application

• Previous message:[Python-Dev] PEP 309: Partial method application
• Next message:[Python-Dev] PEP 309: Partial method application
• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Josiah Carlson wrote:> Steven Bethard <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote:> > If we're going to move away from the itemgetter() and attrgetter()> > style, then we should be consistent about it and provide a solution> > (or solutions) that answers all of these problems:> >     obj.attr> >     obj.attr(*args, **kwargs)> >     obj[key]> > I'm not sure that there is a clean/obvious way to do this.>> I thought that:>   operator.attrgetter() was for obj.attr>   operator.itemgetter() was for obj[integer_index]My point exactly.  If we're sticking to the same style, I would expect that for    obj.method(*args, **kwargs)we would have something like:    operator.methodcaller('method', *args, **kwargs)The proposal by Martin v. Löwis is that this should instead look something like:    methodcall.method(*args, **kwargs)which is a departure from the current attrgetter() and itemgetter()idiom.  I'm not objecting to this approach, by the way.  I think withthe right name, it would probably read well.  I just think that weshould try to be consistent one way or the other.  If we go withMartin v. Löwis's suggestion, I would then expect that the corrolatesto attrgetter() and itemgetter() would also be included, e.g.:    attrget.attr   (for obj.attr)    itemget[key]   (for obj[key])STeVe-- You can wordify anything if you just verb it.        --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy

• Previous message:[Python-Dev] PEP 309: Partial method application
• Next message:[Python-Dev] PEP 309: Partial method application
• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]