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)
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
But that's OK, we don't want to be calling multiple
[Steven Bethard]
> > 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.
[Josiah Carlson]
> But that's OK, we don't want to be calling multiple
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> But that's OK, we d
On 8/18/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/17/05, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you _really_ want to call a local variable 'id' you can (but shouldn't).
>
> Disagreed. The built-in namespace is searched last for a reason -- the
> design is such that if you do
On 8/19/05, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/18/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/17/05, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you _really_ want to call a local variable 'id' you can (but
> > > shouldn't).
> >
> > Disagreed. The built-in namespace
