On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Ben North <b...@redfrontdoor.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the further responses. Again, I'll try to summarise: > > Scott David Daniels pointed out an awkward interaction when chaining > partial applications, such that it could become very unclear what was > going to happen when the final function is called: > >> If you have: >> def button(root, position, action=None, text='*', color=None): >> ... >> ... >> blue_button = partial(button, my_root, color=(0,0,1)) >> >> Should partial_right(blue_button, 'red') change the color or the text? > > Calvin Spealman mentioned a previous patch of his which took the 'hole' > approach, i.e.: > >> [...] my partial.skip patch, which allows the following usage: >> >> split_one = partial(str.split, partial.skip, 1) > > This would solve my original problems, and, continuing Scott's example, > > def on_clicked(...): ... > > _ = partial.skip > clickable_blue_button = partial(blue_button, _, on_clicked) > > has a clear enough meaning I think: > > clickable_blue_button('top-left corner') > = blue_button('top-left corner', on_clicked) > = button(my_root, 'top-left corner', on_clicked, color=(0,0,1)) > > Calvin's idea/patch sounds good to me, then. Others also liked it. > Could it be re-considered, instead of the partial_right idea?
Have any of the original objections to Calvin's patch (http://bugs.python.org/issue1706256) been addressed? If not, I don't see anything in these threads that justify resurrecting it. I still haven't seen any real code presented that would benefit from partial.skip or partial_right. Collin Winter _______________________________________________ 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