On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:49, E. Madison Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > The idea would be to now enhance the existing built-ins to restore at > least some previously lost assumptions, at least in the relevant > cases. To give an analogy, Python 3.0 replaced range() with > (effectively) xrange(). This broken a lot of assumptions that the > object returned by range(N) would work much like a list, and Python > 3.2 restored some of that list-like functionality by adding support > for slicing and negative indexing on range(N). I believe it's worth > considering such enhancements for filter() and map() as well, though > these are obviously a bit trickier.
Thanks. That clarifies the situation for me very well. I agree with most of the comments you made, although I don't have any good answers. I think you're probably right that Guido's original idea to move map and filter to functools might have been better, forcing users to explicitly choose between a genexp and a list comprehension. On the other hand, it might have meant people used more lists than they needed to, as a result. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
