On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 11:27:31AM -0500, David Mertz wrote: > A proposal to make map() not return an iterator seems like a non-starter. > Yes, Python 2 worked that way, but that was a long time ago and we know > better now.
Paul is certainly not suggesting reverting the behaviour to the Python2 map, at the very least map(func, iterator) will continue to return an iterator. What Paul is *precisely* proposing isn't clear to me, except that map(func, sequence) will be "loosely" a sequence. What that means is not obvious. What is especially unclear is what his map() will do when passed multiple iterable arguments. [...] > list_of_keys can be a concrete list, but I'm using map() mainly > specifically to get lazy iterator behavior. Indeed. That's often why I use it too. But there is a good use-case for having map(), or a map-like function, provide either a lazy sequence like range() or a view. But the devil is in the details. Terry was right to encourage people to experiment with their own map-like function (a subclass?) to identify any tricky corners in the proposal. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
