functional-programming tutorial import - Python: Why is functools.partial necessary?

Well, here's an example that shows a difference:

``````In [132]: sum = lambda x, y: x + y

In [133]: n = 5

In [134]: incr = lambda y: sum(n, y)

In [135]: incr2 = partial(sum, n)

In [136]: print incr(3), incr2(3)
8 8

In [137]: n = 9

In [138]: print incr(3), incr2(3)
12 8
``````

These posts by Ivan Moore expand on the "limitations of lambda" and closures in python:

reduce from 2.7

Partial application is cool. What functionality does `functools.partial` offer that you can't get through lambdas?

``````>>> sum = lambda x, y : x + y
>>> sum(1, 2)
3
>>> incr = lambda y : sum(1, y)
>>> incr(2)
3
>>> def sum2(x, y):
return x + y

>>> incr2 = functools.partial(sum2, 1)
>>> incr2(4)
5
``````

Is `functools` somehow more efficient, or readable?

Is functools somehow more efficient..?

As a partly answer to this I decided to test the performance. Here is my example:

``````from functools import partial
import time, math

def make_lambda():
x = 1.3
return lambda: math.sin(x)

def make_partial():
x = 1.3
return partial(math.sin, x)

Iter = 10**7

start = time.clock()
for i in range(0, Iter):
l = make_lambda()
stop = time.clock()
print('lambda creation time {}'.format(stop - start))

start = time.clock()
for i in range(0, Iter):
l()
stop = time.clock()
print('lambda execution time {}'.format(stop - start))

start = time.clock()
for i in range(0, Iter):
p = make_partial()
stop = time.clock()
print('partial creation time {}'.format(stop - start))

start = time.clock()
for i in range(0, Iter):
p()
stop = time.clock()
print('partial execution time {}'.format(stop - start))
``````

on Python 3.3 it gives:

``````lambda creation time 3.1743163756961392
lambda execution time 3.040552701787919
partial creation time 3.514482823352731
partial execution time 1.7113973411608114
``````

Which means that partial needs a bit more time for creation but considerably less time for execution. This can well be the effect of the early and late binding which are discussed in the answer from ars.

I understand the intent quickest in the third example.

When I parse lambdas, I'm expecting more complexity/oddity than offered by the standard library directly.

Also, you'll notice that the third example is the only one which doesn't depend on the full signature of `sum2`; thus making it slightly more loosely coupled.