[Ian Bicking] >> memoize seems to fit into functools fairly well, though deprecated not >> so much. functools is similarly named to itertools, another module >> that >> is kind of vague in scope (though functools is much more vague). >> partial would make just as much sense in functools as in functional.
[Alex] > Couldn't we merge functools and functional into just one (user- > visible) module? The distinction between what goes into one vs the > other is exceedingly subtle and poor users will be guessing as to > what's where. If we need a mixed module with something in C and > something in Python, we can do it the usual way, func.py wrapping > _func.pyd (or .so or whatever)... +1 on putting the tools all in one module. With respect to decorator entries, I would like to see python-dev collectively decide to show restraint. There are so many ways to write and use decorators that best-of-the-best are not yet obvious. Hopefully, collections of decorators will be allowed to grow-in-the-wild as recipes and as third-party modules before being put into the core. Georg's proposal seems like a good candidate for a first entry -- its chief virtue being that it may help people avoid writing crummy decorators. If his goes in, hopefully it will not fall down a slippery slope and trigger an avalance of immature decorators being added to the core. my-two-cents, Raymond _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com