On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:04:33PM +0100, E. Madison Bray wrote: > That effort is already mostly done and adding a helper function would > not have worked as users *passing* map(...) as an argument to some > function just expect it to work.
Ah, that's what I was missing. But... surely the function will still work if they pass an opaque iterator *other* than map() and/or filter? it = (func(x) for x in something if condition(x)) some_sage_function(it) You surely don't expect to be able to peer inside every and any iterator that you are given? So if you have to handle the opaque iterator case anyway, how is it *worse* when the user passes map() or filter() instead of a generator like the above? > I just mentioned that porting effort for background. I still believe > that the actual proposal of making the arguments to a map(...) call > accessible from Python as attributes of the map object (ditto filter, > zip, etc.) is useful in its own right, rather than just having this > completely opaque iterator. Perhaps... I *want* to agree with this, but I'm having trouble thinking of when and how it would be useful. Some concrete examples would help justify it. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
