Le lundi 7 FÃvrier 2005 19:51, John Lenton a ÃcritÂ: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:07:10PM +0100, Francis Girard wrote: > > Zut ! > > > > I'm very sorry that there is no good use case for the "reduce" function > > in Python, like Peter Otten pretends. That's an otherwise very useful > > tool for many use cases. At least on paper. > > > > Python documentation should say "There is no good use case for the reduce > > function in Python and we don't know why we bother you offering it." > > I am guessing you are joking, right?
Of course I am joking. I meant the exact contrary. Only wanted to show that Peter did exaggerate. Thank you for citing me with the full context. > I think Peter exaggerates when he > says that "there will be no good use cases for reduce"; it is very > useful, in writing very compact code when it does exactly what you > want (and you have to go through hoops to do it otherwise). It also > can be the fastest way to do something. For example, the fastest way > to get the factorial of a (small enough) number in pure python is > > factorial = lambda n: reduce(operator.mul, range(1, n+1)) Great. Regards Francis Girard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
