<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I wrote my first Python this week. I was very glad that `map` was named `map`. I just had to glance at the docs to see whether it was a function or a method and which argument came first. It took less time and involved less doubt than learning their closure syntax did.</span></font></div></blockquote><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br class=""></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Are you suggesting that if it had been named “mapped” or “mapping” that you would have been unable to find it? Any decent search engine and/or auto-complete should get you to the correct function just as quickly, again, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that these functions be radically renamed, just that their tense be altered to match the new naming convention, which doesn’t change the root word from which they are derived.</span></font></div></blockquote><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div>I'm suggesting that if it had been named `mapped<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">` or (especially) `mapping`, I would have been a lot less certain I was looking at the list function and not a type or method that was unrelated to the traditional `map`. I probably would have still found it, but I wouldn't have been immediately sure it was right. </span><br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br></div></body></html>