On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 05:19:50PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote: > If we were going to add a syntax for abbreviating lambdas, I would > rather see something more generally useful, e.g. > > x -> x.method() > > as an abbrevation for > > lambda x: x.method()
Cocnut does this! https://coconut.readthedocs.io/en/latest/DOCS.html#lambdas It allows any arbitrary expression and parameter list, rather than being limited to a single special case: lambda x, y=None, *args, **kw: spam(x)+y.eggs()-len(args)+kw['foo'] (x, y=None, *args, **kw) -> spam(x)+y.eggs()-len(args)+kw['foo'] # Saves an entire three columns! *wink* (I believe this is similar to Haskell's syntax.) Given that we have lambda though, and many people don't like anonymous functions, I doubt there's enough advantage to justify adding new syntax. I prefer the look of -> to lambda, but given that we have lambda already I wouldn't want to waste that nice looking arrow operator on something we already can do. I'd rather see it saved for something more interesting, like a hypothetical cascading (fluent) method call syntax, or pattern matching. -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
