Some time ago I looked over Haskell docs and found it's functional composition operator really nice. So I've implemented this tiny decorator:
from functools import partial
class _compfunc(partial):
def __lshift__(self, y):
f = lambda *args, **kwargs: self.func(y(*args, **kwargs))
return _compfunc(f)
def __rshift__(self, y):
f = lambda *args, **kwargs: y(self.func(*args, **kwargs))
return _compfunc(f)
def composable(f):
return _compfunc(f)
@composable
def f1(x):
return x * 2
@composable
def f2(x):
return x + 3
@composable
def f3(x):
return (-1) * x
@composable
def f4(a):
return a + [0]
print (f1 >> f2 >> f3)(3) #-9
print (f4 >> f1)([1, 2]) #[1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0]
print (f4 << f1)([1, 2]) #[1, 2, 1, 2, 0]
The problem: without language support we can't use this syntax on builtin functions or lambdas like this:
((lambda x: x + 3) >> abs)(2)
The question: is it useful? Does it worth to be discussed on python mail list?
In computer science, syntactic sugar is syntax within a programming language that is designed to make things easier to read or to express. It makes the language "sweeter" for human use: things can be expressed more clearly, more concisely, or in an alternative style that some may prefer.
Function composition is the way of combining two or more functions in such a way that the output of one function becomes the input of the second function and so on.
IMHO: no, it's not. While I like Haskell, this just doesn't seem to fit in Python. Instead of (f1 >> f2 >> f3)
you can do compose(f1, f2, f3)
and that solves your problem -- you can use it with any callable without any overloading, decorating or changing the core (IIRC somebody already proposed functools.compose
at least once; I can't find it right now).
Besides, the language definition is frozen right now, so they will probably reject that kind of change anyway -- see PEP 3003.
Function composition isn't a super-common operation in Python, especially not in a way that a composition operator is clearly needed. If something was added, I am not certain I like the choice of <<
and >>
for Python, which are not as obvious to me as they seem to be to you.
I suspect a lot of people would be more comfortable with a function compose
, the order of which is not problematic: compose(f, g)(x)
would mean f(g(x))
, the same order as o
in math and .
in Haskell. Python tries to avoid using punctuation when English words will do, especially when the special characters don't have widely-known meaning. (Exceptions are made for things that seem too useful to pass up, such as @ for decorators (with much hesitation) and * and ** for function arguments.)
If you do choose to send this to python-ideas, you'll probably win a lot more people if you can find some instances in the stdlib or popular Python libraries that function composition could have made code more clear, easy to write, maintainable, or efficient.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With