On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oops! Yes, i did put a superfluous anonymous function in > there, my bad O:-) Although, to my defense, (and although i > never use this style in real code, but i'm trying to save > face here #_o, so bear with me...) the lambda does make the > call to map a "little" more clearer. For instance, when we > juxtapose: > > map(int, flist) > > with: > > map(lambda f:int(f), flist) > > We get a little more insight into the internal workings of > map in the second example, specifically, that each `f` in > `flist` is being cast to integer.
The point of map() is to map a function over a collection. Its inner workings are no more exposed by the use of a pass-through lambda function than without. > So, what are your answers to my four questions: > > (1) Is it a speed issue? Then prove it. > > (2) Is it a readability issue? If so, then that's an > opinion _you_ get to have. > > (3) Is it a matter of "python purity"? If so, then map > should be removed from the language, and don't forget to > remove reduce and filter while you're at it, and then, > you may want to grab a shield because the functional > fanboys will be all over you like white on rice! (psst: > here comes Rustom Mody now!!!) > > (4) Something else...? > >> Of course Python is going to look worse if you add stuff >> like that to your code. > > The lambda was an accident, perhaps even a happy accident, > but my four questions and my original intent stands valid > even in light of my simple mistake. Now dammit, answer the > questions! :-) > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
