My point is that a suite-based syntax can only be a half substitute for lambda and anyway requiring a suite seems overkill and unnatural for the just 1 expression case, for example predicates. IOW a suite-based syntax is not a lambda killer in itself, I would not try to stress that point.
I see your point (also I see Greg Ewing's related point).
multiple dispatch has nothing to do with syntax, in fact usual call syntax is sufficient, and people do use multiple dispatch sometimes, and decorators now can be even used to sugar up the definition side of it.
But one needs to use decorators or some other mechanism for the sugar, that is all I intended the phrase "does not give syntactic support" to mean. Perhaps "syntactic sugar" is the correct term to have used.
for something that would be rarely used, I do not think
well that's up to discussion to discover
ok
well, but this is stated without even trying to come up with a syntax for that case. Notice that the first time around Guido himself would have preferred if achievable a multithunk syntax, he obviously can have changed his mind. But, yes, syntax vs expressivity is the key issue here.
Ok. Allow me to try. Up to a choice of (or existence of!) keywords, the simplest to me is:
def add(thunk1, thunk2, other):
print thunk1(1,2) + thunk2(3,4) + otherwith x,y from add(100):
value x*y
also a,b: # yikes??
value a*b # this is thunk2
-Brian _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
