Aha!
Thanks Ian for this new snippet. It is what I will use for my current example.
(But please see my third posting on this too).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Thanks Ian, Benjamin, and Steven.
I now know why it works as it does.
Thinking about it a little more, Is it reasonable to *expect* partial acts as
it does, rather than this way being an implementation convenience? (That was
written as a straight question not in any way as a dig).
I had though
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Moral of the story: if you pass in an argument by keyword, then the
> following arguments must be passed by keyword as well (or not at all),
> regardless of whether you're using partial or not.
To be clear, you can also just pass f1 into partial
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:30:29 -0700, Paddy wrote:
> Hi, I just found the following oddity where for function fsf1 I am
> forced to use a named parameter for correct evaluation and was wondering
> why it doesn't work, yet the example from the docs of wrapping int to
> create basetwo doesn't need thi
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Paddy wrote:
def fs(f, s): return [f(value) for value in s]
Note that your "fs" is basically equivalent to the "map" builtin,
minus some of the features.
fsf1 = partial(fs, f=f1)
fsf1(s)
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "", line 1, in
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Paddy wrote:
> Hi, I just found the following oddity where for function fsf1 I am forced to
> use a named parameter for correct evaluation and was wondering why it doesn't
> work, yet the example from the docs of wrapping int to create basetwo doesn't
> need thi
P.S: Python 3.2!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi, I just found the following oddity where for function fsf1 I am forced to
use a named parameter for correct evaluation and was wondering why it doesn't
work, yet the example from the docs of wrapping int to create basetwo doesn't
need this?
The example:
>>> from functools import partial
>>>
