Re: map vs. list-comprehension

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Roy Smith wrote:
>> Even some of the relatively recent library enhancements have been kind
>> of complicated. The logging module, for example, seems way over the
>> top.
>Exactly the same thing happened with Java.

I was under the impression that Python's logging module (like unittest)
was based on a common Java one, and it's complexity could be blamed on
that.

> if you look at the libraries
>that were in 1.1, they're very clean and simple (perhaps with the
>exception of AWT). 1.2 added a load of stuff that was much less
>well-designed (with the notable exception of the collections stuff, which
>is beautiful)

There are very many adjectives I could (and have) used to describe
the Collection framework. "Beautiful" is not among them. I think
the closest I could manage is "baroque".

-- 
\S -- siona@chiark.greenend.org.uk -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
  ___  |  "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other"
  \X/  |    -- Arthur C. Clarke
   her nu becomež se bera eadward ofdun hlęddre heafdes bęce bump bump bump