Dear Brendan Barnwell,
On Sun, 5 Sept 2021 at 05:06, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
>
> On 2021-09-04 05:47, Matsuoka Takuo wrote:
..
> > ```
> > from functools import partial
> >
> > curry = partial(partial, partial)
> > F = curry(curry(f))
> > ```
> >
> > Now F has the same amount of information
As I wrote before, I think a multi-getter FUNCTION is a useful thing. In
fact, I linked to several libraries that provide variations on the idea.
But there are a number of choice to make about the behavior of that, and
absolutely no reason it needs to be in the standard library, let alone a
On 2021-09-04 05:47, Matsuoka Takuo wrote:
On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 16:33, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
In other words, currently `*` can turn what looks like one function
call with one thing inside it into one function call with several things
inside it. You are proposing to make it so `*`
On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 16:33, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
>
> In other words, currently `*` can turn what looks like one function
> call with one thing inside it into one function call with several things
> inside it. You are proposing to make it so `*` can turn one indexing
> operation with
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 05:31:33PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I know you don't. My point with that example was to show how unlikely it is
> that someone would write that in the first place (since the code would
> always fail rather than in specific cases).
I have code that does something
Andr$(D+1(B Roberge writes:
> > In theory, there is edu-sig (
> https://www.python.org/community/sigs/current/edu-sig/) but it is
> essentially dead.
Don't they still have a summit at PyCon every year? Surely they're
discussing somewhere!
Steve
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 09:32:26AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> The question is, would anyone ever want to make a distinction between the
> two in *real* code? I find it unlikely that someone would write
>
> try:
> sum(x, y, z)
> except TypeError:
> ...
Not for sum specifically, but
