There must be something wrong with this idea that I'm missing. . .
Well, it does cost you some conciceness, as your examples show[1]:
lazy(mul, x, y) v.s. :x * y lazy(itemgetter(i), x) v.s. :x[i] lazy(attrgetter("a"), x) v.s. :x.a lazycall(lazy(attrgetter("a"), x)) v.s. :x.a()
Not sure how I feel about this yet. I don't personally need lazy argument evaluation often enough to be able to decide which syntax would really be clearer...
I think you've hit the downside on the head, though. Any time you have to use the operator module, you take a big hit in verbosity (particularly since noone ever came up with better names for attrgetter and itemgetter. . .)
There's a reason people like list comprehensions :)
Ah well, I'll let it bake for a while - I'm still not entirely sure about it myself, since I'm in a similar boat to you w.r.t. lazy evaluation (I usually just define functions that do what I want and pass them around).
Cheers, Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
