[Python-ideas] Adding list.pluck()
alexandre.zani at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 00:53:48 CEST 2012
I must confess that I don't find "pluck" a very intuitive name for
this functionality. For me it was evocative of what pop currently
does. That's an N of 1 so maybe I'm just wrong on that one.
More importantly, this would make the use of a list method dependent
upon the type of the contained items. (works for dicts and nothing
else) That would be unprecedented for list methods and potentially
confusing. What would be the behavior if the list contains non-dicts?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Cenk Altı <cenkalti at gmail.com> wrote:
> l.pluck('name') is more readable IMO.
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Alexandre Zani
> <alexandre.zani at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What if it's a list of objects instead of a list of dicts? List
>> comprehension already makes this easy:
>> [i['name'] for i in l]
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Oleg Broytman <phd at phdru.name> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:10:03AM +0300, Cenk Alt?? <cenkalti at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> pluck() is a beautiful function which is in underscore.js library.
>>>> Described as "A convenient version of what is perhaps the most common
>>>> use-case for map: extracting a list of property values."
>>>> What about it implementing for python lists? And maybe for other iterables?
>>> Like operator.attrgetter?
>>> Oleg Broytman http://phdru.name/ phd at phdru.name
>>> Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
>>> Python-ideas mailing list
>>> Python-ideas at python.org
>> Python-ideas mailing list
>> Python-ideas at python.org
More information about the Python-ideas