PEP 309 - Built-in closure type (with tentative syntax proposal)

[Alex Martelli]

Peter Harris wrote:
   ...
> Who knows?  But I don't see the point of another standard library
> module with only one type in it, just so I have to do
>   import curry from curry
> at the top of most of my non-trivial programs.

The point is that you or I will use curry often (although in
my case it might be more like, say, 30% than 90%!!!), but
others won't, and it's silly to overburden the builtins
namespace with more names (there's even too many already)
unless their usefulness IS obvious to everyone.

If and when your module (need not have JUST curry in it,
there's a few other nice functional tools I'd like...)
becomes provably precious to a majority of Python users,
THEN there may be a case to move stuff to built-in.


Consider that sets, for example, HAVE had to start their
life as a standard library module, NOT as a built-in type.
Is currying a more fundamental and precious concept than
SETS...?!  Not really.  So...


Alex