On 2019-02-03 01:54, David Mertz wrote:
Here is a very toy proof-of-concept:
>>> from vector import Vector
>>> l = "Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec".split()
>>> v = Vector(l)
>>> v
<Vector of ['Jan', 'Feb', 'Mar', 'Apr', 'May', 'Jun', 'Jul', 'Aug',
'Sep', 'Oct', 'Nov', 'Dec']>
>>> v.strip().lower().replace('a','X')
<Vector of ['jXn', 'feb', 'mXr', 'Xpr', 'mXy', 'jun', 'jul', 'Xug',
'sep', 'oct', 'nov', 'dec']>
>>> vt = Vector(tuple(l))
>>> vt
<Vector of ('Jan', 'Feb', 'Mar', 'Apr', 'May', 'Jun', 'Jul', 'Aug',
'Sep', 'Oct', 'Nov', 'Dec')>
>>> vt.lower().replace('o','X')
<Vector of ('jan', 'feb', 'mar', 'apr', 'may', 'jun', 'jul', 'aug',
'sep', 'Xct', 'nXv', 'dec')>
My few lines are at https://github.com/DavidMertz/stringpy
One thing I think I'd like to be different is to have some way of
accessing EITHER the collection being held OR each element. So now I
just get:
>>> v.__len__()
<Vector of [3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3]>
Yes, that's an ugly spelling of `len(v)`, but let's bracket that for the
moment. It would be nice also to be able to ask "what's the length of
the vector, in a non-vectorized way" (i.e. 12 in this case). Maybe some
naming convention like:
>>> v.collection__len__()
12
This last is just a possible behavior, not in the code I just uploaded.
Perhaps a reserved attribute that let's you refer to the vector itself
instead of its members, e.g. '.self'?
len(v)
<Vector of [3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3]>
>>> len(v.self)
12
>>> v[1 : ]
<Vector of ['an', 'eb', 'ar', 'pr', 'ay', 'un', 'ul', 'ug', 'ep', 'ct',
'ov', 'ec']>
>>> v.self[1 : ]
<Vector of ['Feb', 'Mar', 'Apr', 'May', 'Jun', 'Jul', 'Aug', 'Sep',
'Oct', 'Nov', 'Dec']>
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 6:47 PM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com
<mailto:ros...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:36 AM Ben Rudiak-Gould
<benrud...@gmail.com <mailto:benrud...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 3:23 PM Christopher Barker
<python...@gmail.com <mailto:python...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> a_list_of_strings.strip().lower().title()
>>
>> is a lot nicer than:
>>
>> [s.title() for s in (s.lower() for s in [s.strip(s) for s in
a_list_of_strings])]
>>
>> or
>>
>> list(map(str.title, (map(str.lower, (map(str.strip,
a_list_of_strings)))) # untested
>
> In this case you can write
>
> [s.strip().lower().title() for s in a_list_of_strings]
What if it's a more complicated example?
len(sorted(a_list_of_strings.casefold())[:100])
where the len() is supposed to give back a list of the lengths of the
first hundred strings, sorted case insensitively? (Okay so it's a
horrible contrived example. Bear with me.)
With current syntax, this would need multiple map calls or
comprehensions:
[len(s) for s in sorted(s.casefold() for s in a_list_of_strings)[:100]]
(Better examples welcomed.)
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
