Beyond possibly saving 3-5 characters, I continue not to see anything different from map in this discussion.
list(vector) applies list to the vector itself.
list.(vector) applies list to each component of vector.
list(seq) applies list to the sequence itself
map(list, seq) applies list to each component of seq
In terms of other examples:
map(str.upper, seq) uppercases each item
map(operator.attrgetter('name'), seq) gets the name attribute of each item
map(lambda a: a*2, seq) doubles each item
(lambda a: a*2)(seq) doubles the sequence itself
... Last two might enjoy named function 'double'
> The problem, of course, is that list() now has to understand Vector
> specially, and so does any function you think of applying to it.
*The whole point* of the Julia syntax is that no function has to
understand any sequence. When we write:
for item in vector:
func only has to understand item, not vector. The same applies to the
There's no puzzle here, no tricky cases, because it is completely
deterministic and explicit: func(x) always calls func with x as
argument, func.(x) always calls func with each of x's items as
> Operators are easier (even those like [1:]) because Vector can make its
> own definition of each through (a finite set of) dunder methods. To make
> a Vector accept an arbitrarily-named method call like my_strings.upper()
> to mean:
With the Julia syntax, there is no need for vectors (or lists, or
generators, or tuples, or sets, or any other iterator...) to accept
arbitrary method calls. So long as vectors can be iterated over,
func.(vector) will work.
Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/