Has anyone thought about my proposal yet? I think because it allows chained function calls to be stored, which is probably something that is a common; if imagine people turning the same series of chained functions into a lambda of its own once it’s used more than once in a program.

Arguably, the lambda syntax is more readable and puts on less visual burden.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 8, 2019, at 3:35 PM, David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM Christopher Barker <pythonchb@gmail.com> wrote:
>    vec_seq = Vector(seq)
>    (vec_seq * 2).name.upper()
>    # ... bunch more stuff
>    seq = vec_seq.unwrap()

what type would .unwrap() return?

The idea—and the current toy implementation/alpha—has .unwrap return whatever type went into the Vector creation.  Might be a tuple, list, set, deque, or it might be an iterator.  It might even be some custom collection that isn't in the standard library.

But you can also explicitly make a Vector into something else by using that constructor.  Pretty much as I gave example before:

    set(Vector(a_list))             # Get a set
    Vector(a_list)).unwrap()    # Get a list (without needing to know type to call .unwrap())
 
--
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food
from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the
uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting
advocates of freedom in prisons.  Intellectual property is
to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/