Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> writes: > > (Although I have to say, I have little sympathy for Steven's > > hypothetical "new programmer who isn't familiar with map and reduce". > > With ‘reduce’ gone in Python 3 [0], I can only interpret that as “I have > little sympathy for programmers who start with Python 3”. Is that in > line with what you meant?
Yes, Ben, clearly I was being an asshole here, and my follow up statement about the small number of built-ins and the ease of looking up documentation had no bearing on it whatsoever. When I write in-production code, I write code. I don't write for a hypothetical first time coder who has no experience with the language. I don't limit myself to patterns only used in the Python tutorial. If that means a metaclass or functional style is the right approach, then that's what I'll use. If you want to extrapolate that into assumptions on my opinions of the various Python versions, I obviously can't stop you. > The process of deprecation (‘map’ and ‘reduce’ are nowadays better > replaced with list comprehensions or generator expressions) surely > entails deprecating learning the deprecated practice for new code. map is still a built-in, it's hardly deprecated. You might want to do something about that if you insist on everyone conforming to your ideal style. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
