map/filter/reduce/lambda opinions and background unscientific mini-survey
Erik Max Francis
max at alcyone.com
Mon Jul 4 05:54:22 CEST 2005
Ron Adam wrote:
> So you are saying that anything that has a 1% use case should be
> included as a builtin function?
> I think I can find a few hundred other functions in the library that are
> used more than ten times as often as reduce. Should those be builtins too?
> This is a practical over purity issue, so what are the practical reasons
> for keeping it. "It's already there" isn't a practical reason. And it
> covers 100% of it's own potential use cases, is circular logic without a
> real underlying basis.
But the Python 3000 plan, at least what we've heard of it so far, isn't
to move it to a standard library module. It's to remove it altogether,
replacing it with sum and product. Since sum and product don't cover
all the uses cases for reduce, this is a case of taking one function
that handles all the required use cases and replacing it with _two_
functions that don't. Since it's doubling the footprint of the reduce
functionality, arguments about avoiding pollution are red herrings.
Erik Max Francis && max at alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Every astronaut who goes up knows the risks he or she faces.
-- Sally Ride
More information about the Python-list