Jp Calderone wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:16:08 -0500, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> "Jason Zheng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Steven Bethard wrote: >> >> Jason Zheng wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'm wondering why python still has limited lambda support. What's >> >>> stopping the developers of python to support more lisp-like lambda >> >>> function? >> >> They already have: given the fundamental syntax difference between all >> expressions and expressions within statements, def statements are at >> least >> the equivalent of lisp lambdas + name binding. When you get an exception >> traceback, a unique name is more helpful than the pseudoname <lambda>. >> Isolating the definition of a function in a separate statement also makes >> it possible to unittest the function. >> >> >> This comes up every few weeks on the list. If you haven't already, >> >> check the archives in Google for 'anonymous def' or 'anonymous >> >> function'. The usual response to this question is something along the >> >> lines of "if it's good enough to create a function for, it's good >> >> enough to name". >> >> What puzzles me is 1) why some people apparently think anonymity is good >> -- is it really that hard to name non-trivial functions? and 2) why some >> people are so quick to recommend changes to Python before they understand >> what they can already do (wth def statements, in this case). > > Regarding #1: there must be a great variance between people in the > difficulty of some aspects of programming. I am always amazed to hear > from people who have no difficulty picking names for all of their > functions. This is a task that often stumps me for long minutes. Given > the obvious profusion of functions in most programs, these minutes > compound > into hours very quickly. I am always greatful when a lambda lets me avoid > wasting time on something as irrelevant as giving a name to a short > function that will be referenced exactly once. > > I am quite envious of those who can easily come up with names for any > function. Perhaps you lot should go a bit easier on the rest of us and > let us keep our crutches. After all, Python is a language which is > supposed to make me more productive by letting me ignore irrelevant > things, > not force me to waste time on them. Why should this part of the langauge > be any different? > > Jp
A lambda should be used for a one-time, one-line-use function that you have no intention of calling again (anything more would be an inefficiency--which you profess not to be fond of). It is not terribly difficult to come up with a name like "get_name()" or the like and stamp a "def" in front of with a colon on the end. Then again, it is your program, you can do whatever you like. In my opinion, I don't see how it can be productive to make code difficult to read and typing the same series of keystrokes over and over. -- Harlin Seritt -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
