Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
> >>I thought that:
> >> operator.attrgetter() was for obj.attr
> >> operator.itemgetter() was for obj[integer_index]
> >
> >
> > My point exactly. If we're sticking to the same style, I would expect that
> > for
> > obj.method(*args, **kwargs)
> > we would have something like:
> > operator.methodcaller('method', *args, **kwargs)
>
> You might be missing one aspect of attrgetter, though. I can have
>
> f = operator.attrgetter('name', 'age')
>
> and then f(person) gives me (person.name, person.age). Likewise for
> itemgetter(1,2,3).
[snip]
> I don't know what the common use for
> attrgetter is: one or more attributes?
Well, in current Python code, I'd be willing to wager that it's one,
no more, since Python 2.4 only supports a single argument to
itemgetter and attrgetter. Of course, when Python 2.5 comes out, it's
certainly possible that the multi-argument forms will become
commonplace.
I agree that an operator.methodcaller() shouldn't try to support
multiple methods. OTOH, the syntax
methodcall.method(*args, **kwargs)
doesn't really lend itself to multiple methods either.
STeVe
--
You can wordify anything if you just verb it.
--- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
