I'm OK with that, I guess, and I agree about dictionary vs. map.

But I think we should use the words "functional" or "functional programming" somewhere prominently in the README.  We are adopting a lot of concepts from FP and many of our "customers" will be people interested in doing the same.



On Sep 22, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Matthew Rocklin <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In README.md:
> 
> > @@ -1,9 +1,26 @@
> >  Toolz
> >  =====
> >  
> > -More tools for Python.  A set of common utility functions.
> > +This library provides a set of utility functions for Python, mostly to
> > +implement common functional idioms, emphasizing immutability and
> > +composability. It includes various higher-order functions, as well as
> > +functions for operating on sequences and maps (dictionaries).
> For the moment I'm against labeling toolz as a library for functional programming. I'm afraid that that will turn away potential users. I would stick to something super-generic like
> 
> A set of common utility functions for iterators, functions, and dictionaries.
> 
> Along this line I think we should endeavor to promote Python terms like 'dictionary' over functional terms like 'map'.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
>