Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009)

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by clusmore on Monday January 09, 2017 @01:07AM (#13354361)

Well, for one I believe they pre-date comprehensions. Having them as functions is also occasionally useful for partial application, e.g.

  from functools import partial
  to_strings = partial(map, str)
  # vs
  def to_strings(seq):
      return (str(elem) for elem in seq)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by m_mueller on Monday January 09, 2017 @01:20AM (#13354423)

I can see it together with partial, yes, that's when it can become a bit cleaner. Another reason why I use map is when I want to use multiprocessing or multithreading (with IO heavy functions). But on a fine grained level of code I find it really hurts readability compared to comprehensions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by EvilTerran on Monday January 09, 2017 @07:39AM (#13355895)

Or this:

    def to_strings(seq):
        return map(str, seq)

Generally, when the operation I'm applying to each element happens to already be a named function, I find "map(f, seq)" preferable to "(f(x) for x in seq)".

[ Parent | on HN ]