[Python-ideas] (no subject)

[Ivan Levkivskyi]

This is one of the options, but in my opinion an operator (@ that I
propose) is clearer than a function

On 6 May 2015 at 20:44, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 May 2015 at 17:23, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivskyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I should clarify why I would like to have the possibility to easily
> compose
> > functions.
> > I am a physicist (not a real programmer), and in my code I often compose
> > functions.
> >
> > To do this I need to write something like
> >
> > def new_func(x):
> >     return f(g(h(x)))
> >
> > This means I see f(g(h())) quite often and I would prefer to see f @ g @
> h
> > instead.
>
> I appreciate that it's orthogonal to the proposal, but would a utility
> function like this be useful?
>
> def compose(*fns):
>     def composed(x):
>         for f in reversed(fns):
>             x = f(x)
>         return x
>     return composed
>
> comp = compose(f, g, h)
> # comp(x) = f(g(h(x)))
>
> Paul
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20150506/219eadda/attachment.html>