On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, at 06:48, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 12:24:55 +0100
> "J. Pic" <j...@yourlabs.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Lambdas can be defined as such:
> >
> > w = lambda: [12]
> > x = lambda y: len(y)
> >
> > I'd like to propose the following:
> >
> > w = (): [12]
>
> What will be the meaning of {(): [12]} ? Hint: it will be a dictionary
> of empty tuple mapping to a list, where do you see lambda here?
This could be solved with parentheses, but I think it'd probably be better to
use similar syntax to C#, Java, and Javascript instead, and use () -> [12] or
() => 12...
It's worth noting that all three of these are later additions to their
respective languages, and they all have earlier, more difficult, ways of
writing nested functions within expressions. Their designers saw the benefit of
an easy lambda syntax, why don't we?
It also may be worth looking at what it would take to allow asynchronous
lambdas. Syntactically, while "any lambda containing await" is tempting, the
lack of static typing means that we need a way to specify async lambdas that do
not contain await. Javascript prefixes the argument list with async [i.e.
"async () => ..." or "async onearg => ..."], as does C# even though it could in
principle get away without doing so because of static typing.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/44OSHX36GMKSUKWIHA4Q4STCSXHZTMFD/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
