On 2022-10-09 22:38:28 -0400, avi.e.gr...@gmail.com wrote: > [This is an answer for Peter and can easily be skipped by those who know or > have no wish to.] > > Strictly speaking Peter, the word "pipe" may not mean quite something in > Python but other concepts like chaining may be better. > > The original use of the word I am used to was at the UNIX shell level where > an in-core data structure called a pipe was used
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of Unix' death have been greatly
exaggerated.
Unix (or at least its bastard offsprings Linux and OSX) is alive and
well and still has pipes. I use them every day.
> If you have an object with some method you can call on it (or in some cases
> a normal function call) that returns another (or the same) object, then you
> can write code like:
>
> This.that.other
Yeah, I thought you might be referring to that. I've just never seen the
term "pipeline" for that construct (I think "method chaining" is
reasonably common).
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | h...@hjp.at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
