On Sat, 05 May 2018 09:33:37 +0200, Peter Otten wrote:
> I think you have established that there is no straight-forward way to
> write this as a lambda.
What I *mostly* established was that I was having a "cannot brain, I have
the dumb" day, because the solution with ternary if was obvious in
hindsight:
lambda x: x[3] if len(x) > 4 else "MISSING"
nevertheless, I still think that making this a feature of itemgetter and
attrgetter is worthwhile.
> But is adding a default to itemgetter the right conclusion?
I think so, but others (including Raymond Hettinger and Serhiy Storchaka)
don't. Even when they're clearly and obviously wrong, as in this case
*wink*, I don't think we should just dismiss their objection without
careful thought.
--
Steve
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
