On Feb 2, 12:13 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 1. functools.partialpre: partialpre( f, x, y )( z )-> f( z, x, y ) > > 2. functools.pare: pare( f, 1 )( x, y )-> f( y ) > > 3. functools.parepre: parepre( f, 1 )( x, y )-> f( x ) > > 4. functools.calling_default: calling_default( f, a, DefaultA, b )-> > > f( a, <default 2rd arg, even if not None>, b ) > > There are lots of possibilities for functools. If you actually want > anything added, you'll need to back up your suggestions with use cases. > Unless something is currently in widespread use in existing Python > code, it's unlikely to be included in the standard library. > > STeVe
Feel, hunch, affinity, and instinct are acceptable criteria for judging. Otherwise, you're someone, and you have statistics on what constitutes widespread use; I can tell what's good as well as you. Guido says, "Programmer time is important." If it saves time, on the whole, writing plus learning plus reading, it's likely to be included. urllib was not "in widespread use" prior to inclusion, but they did, was it? "> There are lots of possibilities for functools." So many, in fact, they're thinking of adding a separate "wrappertools" module. Monarchies are effective on small scales. Is Python destined for the small-time? I've seen these suggestions before; they did not receive impartial address. Functools and the candidate "wrappertools" should be populated fairly liberally. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
