On 07/12/2013 04:17 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
On 12 July 2013 14:50, Mathias Panzenböck firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 07/12/2013 08:01 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >
I'd personally be in favour of the notion of also allowing strings as the first argument, so you could instead write:
data = fold("+=", , iterables)
I'd like to see a more Haskell like way to reference operators:
data = fold((+=), , iterables)
(+=) would just be a short syntax for operator.iadd without the need to explicitly import any module. It should generate the same byte code.
But I have the feeling that won't happen. :/
Damn straight! Do you realise how much of an attractive nuisance that would be for people constantly begging "I have (+) now so why do I have to write lambda for <blah blah blah>" and then Guido gets upset because he's covered this so many times before and no-one will just agree goddamnit?
I get your point, but (+) wouldn't be a lambda. It would just be a shorthand for operator.add. So you could write (+)(a, b) instead of a + b. Well, thinking of that maybe it's not such a good idea.