On 21 December 2011 18:32, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Joshua Landau > <joshua.landau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was under the impression that these were meant to be interchangeable. > This > > is because functions are just wrappers to non-functions, really. > > > >>>> from elementwise import ElementwiseProxy as P > >>>> (lambda x:x+[1])(P([[0],[0],[0]])) > > [0, 1], [0, 1], [0, 1] > > > > If we have to use .apply, we might as well use map :P. > > Apply is not required, you can use functions. I just hate reading > inside out and backwards. compare: > > func3(func2(func1(x))) # Fine if the chain is short, but quickly gets > unreadable > > x.apply(func1).apply(func2).apply(func3) # More verbose when working > with short chains, but infinitely clearer and more readable when > things start getting complicated, or for less experienced coders I wan't disagreeing with that, hence the word "if". I was just making a counter-counter point to a misunderstanding of my post. > > Note that "len" and "dir" crash. > > > > Here is a perfect example: > >>>> int(P(["1","2","3"])) > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> > > TypeError: __int__ returned non-int (type ElementwiseProxy) > > It is alpha software :P Easily fixed though. > If fix means "return number" then no. This inconsistency between elementwise operations and 'normal' ones is the problem. Again, explicit elementwise-ifying through "~" fixes that. You need to tell me why this is worth the confusion over that.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
