"Konstantin Veretennicov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/25/05, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:41:58 +0200, Konstantin Veretennicov wrote: > > > > > On 6/25/05, Mandus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> It is really a consensus on this; that > > >> removing map, filter, reduce is a good thing? It will render a whole lot > > >> of my software unusable :( > > > > > > I think you'll be able to use "from __past__ import map, filter, > > > reduce" or something like that :) They don't have to be built-in. > > > > More likely they will be moved to something like itertools than "__past__". > > > > Or just define them yourself: > > > > def map(f, seq): > > return [f(x) for x in seq] > > > > def filter(p, seq): > > return [x for x in seq if p(x)] > > > > def reduce(f, seq, zero): > > r = zero > > for x in seq: r = f(r, x) > > return r > > FWIW, these don't exactly reproduce behaviour of current built-ins. > Filter, for instance, doesn't always return lists and map accepts more > than one seq... Just my $.02. > > - kv
If they go to itertools, they can simply be: def map(f, *iterables): return list(imap(f,*iterables)) def filter(f, seq): return list(ifilter(f,seq)) George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list