map/filter/reduce/lambda opinions and background unscientific mini-survey
rrr at ronadam.com
Mon Jul 4 05:41:44 CEST 2005
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>> Each item needs to stand on it's own. It's a much stronger argument
>> for removing something because something else fulfills it's need and
>> is easier or faster to use than just saying we need x because we have y.
>> In this case sum and product fulfill 90% (estimate of course) of
>> reduces use cases. It may actually be as high as 99% for all I know.
>> Or it may be less. Anyone care to try and put a real measurement on it?
> Well, reduce covers 100% of them, and it's one function, and it's
> already there.
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.
More information about the Python-list