On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Russel Walker <russ.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:45:27 PM UTC+2, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 19-06-13 18:14, russ.po...@gmail.com schreef: >> >> > >> >> >>>> all(map(lambda x: bool(x), xrange(10**9))) >> >> Since you already have your answer, I just like to get your attention >> to the fact the the lambda is superfluous here. Your expression >> above is equivallent to >> >> all(map(bool, xrange(10**9))) > > That's true, I didn't notice that. Although it was a trivial example I was > setting up from the actual code and couldn't think of what to shove inside > lambda so bool got the short straw.
Yeah, I've been guilty of that fairly often - making a trivial example that can be trivialized even more. Sometimes all you need to do is acknowledge it with a comment and move on, other times the additional trivialization is a clue to the actual problem :) In this particular case, all() will boolify anyway, so you don't even need map. But that would completely destroy your example: all(xrange(10**9)) # Doesn't help with figuring out the original issue! ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
