>>Overall, I have no major objections to the PEP or the patch. Before it
>>goes in on auto-pilot, it would be darned nice if the proponents said
>>that they've found it helpful in real code and that they are satisfied
>>with the timings.
>I guess "darned nice" is the best you can hope for. Not sure if Peter
>Harris is still around.
Yes, I'm still lurking, slightly aghast that my little PEP is getting
such ferocious scrutiny. I would
have like some of that in time for it to go into 2.4, but I suppose you
should be careful what you
I'll answer a few points from this thread, in no particular order:
My original desire was a built-in, but it was suggested that the first
step would be a Python
implementation in the standard library to try it out. That was the
basis for the PEP, and in fact
a C implementation would have been beyond my expertise.
However, I sympathise with anyone who feels unhappy about a new module
just for what amounts
to one function. I'd be happy to go back to the built-in, now someone
cleverer than I am has
written one. Sorry I can't rememeber your name, whoever you are. I'm
having trouble with my
I was never too bothered about efficiency, and still am not. For me it
was always primarily a
way to save typing or build call-back functions on the fly. The
discussion about using it to
make instancemethods and classmethods -- way over my head! I would count
that as something
weird enough to be worth spelling out in "plain Python", in my code anyway.
The PEP was scattered over a few patches because I wasn't too sure how
to go about it, so there
was my Python module, the C implementation, the unit tests and the docs
all in separate patches.
3/4 of that was my fault - sorry!
Once the PEP had been accepted, I didn't like to mess with it, which is
why I went quiet for a while.
It's gone past the point where I can personally contribute much, so I'd
just like to say thanks and
I look forward to the day when I can just use it.