aleaxit at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 26 04:01:30 EST 2003
On Sunday 26 October 2003 04:36, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this usage is pushing at TWO not-strengths of Python:
> > no neat way to pass an unnamed predicate (lambda ain't really all
> > that neat...) AND no assignment-as-expression. So, I don't think it
> > would really catch on all that much.
> Yeah. An explicit for loop sounds much better in cases where we want
> to know which x failed the test. Let alltrue() be as simple as
> originally proposed.
Yeah, makes sense.
> Do we need allfalse() and anytrue() and anyfalse() too? These can all
> easily be gotten by judicious use of 'not'. I think ABC has EACH,
> SOME and NO (why not all four? who knows).
If we were discussing language or built-ins I would argue for "only one
obvious way to do it", but I don't think this is all that important once we
are discussing standard-library functions (which IS the case here, right?).
Still, I'm not sure I see the benefits of overlapping functionality in this
More information about the Python-Dev