[Python-Dev] a different kind of reduce...

Josiah Carlson jcarlson at uci.edu
Tue Nov 1 22:29:29 CET 2005

"Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <tdelaney at avaya.com> wrote:
> Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
> > And we have solved the "map, filter and reduce are going away! Let's
> > all weep together" problem with one strike!
> I'm not sure if you're wildly enthusiastic, or very sarcastic.
> I'm not sure which I should be either ...
> The thought does appeal to me - especially func.partial(args). I don't
> see any advantage to func.map(args) over func(*args), and it loses
> functionality in comparison with map(func, args) (passing the function
> as a separate reference).

I was under the impression that:
    fcn.<old builtin name>(...)
would perform equivalently as
    <old builtin name>(fcn, ...)
does now.

So all the following would be equivalent...
    map(func, args)
    [func(i) for i in args]

Me, I still use map, so seeing it as fcn.map(...) instead of map(fcn,...)
sounds good to me...though it does have the ugly rub of suggesting that
None.map/filter should exist, which I'm not really happy about.

In regards to the instance __call__ method, it seems reasonable to
require users to implement their own map/filter/reduce call.

 - Josiah

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list