On Nov 23, 9:31 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:50:30 -0800, Ant wrote: > > So my point really is that foldr (perhaps renamed to make_reducer or > > something) could create idioms that are more readable than using > > reduce directly. > > The name is definitely not so good because there is a `foldr` in Haskell
I haven't done any Haskell programming for maybe 6 years, so can't remember a thing about it :-) I assume then that in Haskell currying is automatic - i.e. if you leave out arguments you get a curried function back, is that correct? > foldr = lambda func, initial, iterable: reduce(func, iterable, initial) > > comma_separate = partial(foldr, insert_comma, '') > > `insert_comma()` is left as an exercise for the reader. :-) > > I think that's better than a `make_reducer()`. > > Of course it's a silly example because the "pythonic" way to define > `comma_separate()` is:: > > comma_separate = ','.join Well, yes of course. I have no use cases for this, hence the silly example :-). It just occurred to me that it may be a more readable solution than using reduce. But make_reducer is I agree a crap name, and I can't think of a better one offhand. And I think that this would only be valuable if an intuitive name could be found, otherwise people reading the code would have the extra overhead of working out what the function actually does... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
