On 2016-07-29 19:59, Michael Selik wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:52 AM Greg Ewing
mailto:greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: Daniel Spitz wrote: > I'm > not sure and don't have a strong opinion about the original removal of > apply.
I expect it was removed simply because the * and ** calling syntax makes it unecessary (before that was introduced, apply was the only way of getting that funcionality).
If it's to be reintroduced, the operator module would seem to be the right place for it.
If it goes in the operator module, then the name ``operator.starcall`` seems better than ``starcaller``. I'd say ``operator.unpack`` would be better, except for the confusion between unpacking assignment and unpacking as arguments. I suppose ``operator.apply`` would be OK, too. Is there a better vocabulary word for unpack-as-args?
Why not just operator.call? I suppose actually operator.caller would be more consistent with the existing attrgetter and methodcaller? -- Brendan Barnwell "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail." --author unknown