On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Fri, 04 May 2018 09:17:14 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Steven D'Aprano >> <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >>> Here are the specifications: >>> >>> * you must use lambda, not def; >> >> Why? This seems like an arbitrary constraint. > > You'll have to ask the two core devs. In my post, in the part you > deleted, I wrote: > > Two senior developers have rejected this feature, saying > that we should just use a lambda instead. > > > My guess is that they were thinking that there's no need to complicate > itemgetter for this use-case when it is just as easy to write up a quick > lambda to do the job.
I saw that. I just don't understand why the solution should require a lambda just because that was the word used by a couple of core devs. > For what it's worth, your itemgetter2() is about 1600% slower on my > computer than the real thing. I know I didn't specify speed as a > requirement, but I mention it because on the bug tracker, the importance > of keeping itemgetter fast is stressed. The real thing is written in C. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
