mwh at python.net
Fri Jan 25 18:11:53 CET 2002
Jonathan Hogg <jonathan at onegoodidea.com> writes:
> >> Still, I'd want to move 'map' and 'reduce' into such a module, and I guess
> >> it's too late to reorganise builtins ;-)
> > Yes.
> > reduce() has to be the most useless builtin around. I'd remove it, if
> > it was an option.
> Ah, but you see that's why I'd like to see the builtins reorganised.
No objection in theory; a whole boatload of objections in practice.
> I'm aware that many people have no use for the functional-style
> definitions like 'map' and 'reduce'. I personally think they are
> tremendously useful. [But then I programmed in Haskell for years.]
map() I tolerate, even like. I really do think reduce() is useless,
in the sense that any use of it can be more clearly and more
efficiently written using plainer Python. What do you use it for?
> I don't want to see them removed, but moved into another module. Perhaps for
> Python 3... ;-)
Pain for no great gain, IMHO.
> > Hmm, I thought it had been rejected (see above). I'll prod
> > python-dev, perhaps.
> According to the site it's in the "Open PEPs (under consideration
> for Python 2.3)" section as a draft.
No, it's deferred, as Jason said, and it's only in that section
because it was the sections titled "Open PEPs (under consideration for
Python 2.1)" and "Open PEPs (under consideration for Python 2.2)". I
don't recall it getting any consideration before either of those
This song is for anyone ... fuck it. Shut up and listen.
-- Eminem, "The Way I Am"
More information about the Python-list