On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:25:19AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:16 AM Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
> > Except for relatively trivial expressions, this is a bad thing. All > > functions created from lambda expressions get the same pseudo-name > > '<lambda>'. This can make tracebacks worse. Perhaps more importantly, > > proper testing may become harder. > > The same considerations bite comprehensions, too, but we don't > discourage their use. So I don't think this should be a killer - not > on its own, anyhow. But we *do* discourage large, complex comprehensions, especially nested ones. And more importantly, comprehensions are also limited to a single expression, like lambda, and if you need a multi-statement comprehension we say "turn it into a for-loop". > I do not currently support any proposed syntax for multi-statement > lambda functions, mainly because they've all been ugly. But maybe > there'll be one, somewhere, some day, that makes sense. After 25 years, I think the odds of that are pretty slim. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
