PEP 309 (partial function application)
Should this go into 2.4a2? It's marked as "accepted" in the PEP list, and an implementation exists as SF patch 941881. Paul -- The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair. -- Douglas Adams
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:24:13 +0100, Paul Moore <pf_moore@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Should this go into 2.4a2? It's marked as "accepted" in the PEP list, and an implementation exists as SF patch 941881.
Paul, Without comment on the merits of the PEP, it seems out of date to me. The PEP presents three different implementations of curry (one in Pyrex) without clarifying which one is the preferred one. It presents a summary at the end that would make more sense at the beginning. I would revise the PEP to: 1. Clearly describe what is being implemented for 2.4. Provide a specification for the behavior along with examples of use. Make sure you cover all the corner cases, e.g. can you provide a keyword arg without providing positional args. 2. Provide a rationale for why this belongs in the standard library. 3. Describe the @ syntax, but put it in a self-contained section and explain why it was not implemented. Jeremy
participants (2)
-
Jeremy Hylton -
Paul Moore