Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.023 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.95; '*S*': 0.00; 'example:': 0.03; 'true,': 0.05; '21,': 0.07; 'subject:would': 0.07; 'yeah,': 0.09; 'bool': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'guilty': 0.16; 'lambda': 0.16; 'subject:key': 0.16; 'superfluous': 0.16; 'thursday,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'example': 0.22; 'fairly': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'on,': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; "doesn't": 0.30; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'that.': 0.31; '>>>>': 0.31; 'trivial': 0.31; 'subject:all': 0.32; 'fri,': 0.33; 'actual': 0.34; 'comment': 0.34; 'problem': 0.35; 'case,': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; "didn't": 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'sometimes': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'fact': 0.38; 'short': 0.38; "couldn't": 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'skip:x 10': 0.40; 'even': 0.60; 'expression': 0.60; 'times': 0.62; 'making': 0.63; 'email addr:gmail.com': 0.63; '20,': 0.68; 'attention': 0.75; 'pardon': 0.84; 'subject:Idea': 0.84; 'acknowledge': 0.93; '2013': 0.98 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=UAOjieXiEHGxJBX2dxf22YkPzTpsUGcg1a1DcF5oFAY=; b=e6jGBfdXCHy07PKW06dWoy63UZwXjr1eH1H7KgIfJqRdFqhAQ+kCoOYtbkbR7ZeerX b5qSLfzPMUqzw7/FynmQId2euiTYDSTUmz6Qfem8QzCel3RBqEdDUonmwVpfzsco+AY5 m7wUkoD7JEDF6SfgpZLdxDPf9Oh88xYqJpnvdZq3M8m755ySsfLrS7dVSyGIWVscqC6i s7Wa9GWXcNgs7UIPawuuz50g+Sad0c65wIDnABGfGVWwC/XWROJOW1oeWvNkg46vcfol frTTiUMd3wD2RUZ2cbjaJ01ffOkz+tPKsTUmxndf7172dfgls0IIpSoGtV3FBp/64Hnj 39Sw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.48.17 with SMTP id p17mr3036594vcf.97.1371743292837; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:48:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9150d9b7-e488-4f9f-beff-4a140bcc78f0@googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 01:48:12 +1000 Subject: Re: Idea for key parameter in all() builting, would it be feasible? From: Chris Angelico To: python-list@python.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1371743295 news.xs4all.nl 15973 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:45770 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:48803 On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Russel Walker wrote: > On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:45:27 PM UTC+2, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 19-06-13 18:14, russ.pobox@gmail.com schreef: >> >> > >> >> >>>> all(map(lambda x: bool(x), xrange(10**9))) >> >> Since you already have your answer, I just like to get your attention >> to the fact the the lambda is superfluous here. Your expression >> above is equivallent to >> >> all(map(bool, xrange(10**9))) > > That's true, I didn't notice that. Although it was a trivial example I was setting up from the actual code and couldn't think of what to shove inside lambda so bool got the short straw. Yeah, I've been guilty of that fairly often - making a trivial example that can be trivialized even more. Sometimes all you need to do is acknowledge it with a comment and move on, other times the additional trivialization is a clue to the actual problem :) In this particular case, all() will boolify anyway, so you don't even need map. But that would completely destroy your example: all(xrange(10**9)) # Doesn't help with figuring out the original issue! ChrisA