Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe anonymus function closures should be pushed forward right now not > only syntactically? Personally I could live with lambda or several > of the alternative syntaxes listed on the wiki page.
> But asking for a favourite syntax I would skip the "def" keyword from > your def-arrow syntax proposal and use: > > ((a, b, c) -> f(a) + o(b) - o(c)) ... > The arrow is a straightforward punctuation for function definitions. > Reusing existing keywords for different semantics seems to me as a kind > of inbreeding. That's starting to look like the pseudocode from old algorithms textbooks, which is very similar to bad pseudocode from modern CS theory papers. Punctuation as a replacement for words does not always win (perfect examples being 'and' vs. &&, 'or' vs. ||, 'not' vs. !, ...) -1 on the syntax offering. > For pushing anymus functions forward I propose to enable explizit > partial evaluation as a programming technique: If I remember correctly, we've got rightcurry and leftcurry for that (or rightpartial and leftpartial, or something). > >>> ((x,y) -> (x+1)*y**2) > ((x,y) -> (x+1)*y**2) > > >>> ((x,y) -> (x+1)*y**2)(x=5) > ((y) -> 6*y**2) I'll assume that you don't actually want it to rewrite the source, or actually return the source representation of the anonymous function (those are almost non-starters). As for all anonymous functions allowing partial evaluation via keywords: it would hide errors. Right now, if you forget an argument or add too many arguments, you get a TypeError. Your proposal would make forgetting an argument in certain ways return a partially evaluated function. -1 on partial evaluation. - Josiah _______________________________________________ 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
