On 2/7/06, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/7/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/5/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > After so many attempts to come up with an alternative for lambda, > > > perhaps we should admit defeat. I've not had the time to follow the > > > most recent rounds, but I propose that we keep lambda, so as to stop > > > wasting everybody's talent and time on an impossible quest. > > > > I have been thinking about this, and I have to say I am a little > > disappointed (-0 disappointed, not -1 disappointed). I honestly > > bought the argument for removing lambda. And I think that a deferred > > object would help with one of lambda's biggest uses and made its loss > > totally reasonable. > > I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but as far as my understanding > goes, current lambda *is* a "deferred object" (or at least a "deferred > expression", which may not be quite what you mean...) >
Yes, lambda is deferred. What I mean is using lambda for things like ``lambda x: x.attr`` and such; specifically for deferred execution, and not for stuff like ``lambda x: func(1, 2, x, 3, 4)`` stuff. > > But I know that everyone and their email client is against me on this > > one, so I am not going to really try to tear into this. But I do > > think that lambda needs a renaming. > > I agree with this. The *name* "lambda" is a wart, even if the deferred > expression feature isn't. My preference is to simply replace the > keyword lambda with a keyword "expr" (or if that's not acceptable > because there's too much prior use of expr as a variable name, then > maybe "expression" - but that's starting to get a bit long). > > > Speaking as someone who still > > forgets that Python's lambda is not the same as those found in > > functional languages, > > Well, only in the sense that Python's *expressions* are not the same > as those found in functional languages (ie, Python has statements > which are not expressions). But I see your point - and I strongly > object to going the other way and extending lambda/expr to allow > statements or suites. > > > I would much rather have it named 'expr' or > > 'expression' or something that is more inline with its abilities then > > with a name taken for CS historical reasons. This ain't for father's > > lambda and thus shouldn't be named so. > > Agreed. But if "expr" isn't acceptable, I don't like the other common > suggestion of reusing "def". It's not a definition, nor is it "like an > anonymous function" (the lack of support for statements/suites being > the key difference). > Yeah, reusing def is taking back into the functional world too much. It makes our current use of def seem more like syntactic sugar for assigning a lambda to a name for function definition and that is not what is happening here. > > Then again, Guido did say he "should", not that he "did" admit defeat. =) > > OTOH, he was trying to stop endless the discussion... :-) > =) Well, it should when Python 3 comes out, so there is some extra incentive for that to happen sooner than later. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
