On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 12:18, Raymond Hettinger wrote:Lambda will be more difficult. Eric Raymond adapted an anti-gun control slogan and said "you can pry lambda out of my cold dead hands." A bunch of folks will sorely miss the ability to create anonymous functions on the fly. When lambda is used for deferred argument evaluation (a la PEP 312), the def syntax is a crummy substitute.
Yeah, I'm with you here. As warty as lambda is, it just is so damn convenient some times. I've recently been using it as a companion to property(), providing concise definitions of read-only attributes.
I'm hoping that "lambda goes in Python3K" will get rid of the *existing* lambda, so that a more Pythonic syntax for deferred evaluation can be found. At the moment, any such attempt to come up with an alternate syntax tends to get shouted down on the basis that "you can already use lambda, TOOWTDI, stop wasting time".
I see the *feature* as useful, but the current syntax as lousy. If it was a PEP, the latter would be grounds for rejection of lambda expressions (such as happened to PEP 308).
A collection of alternate suggestions did get posted to the Wiki though (my personal favourite is "(<expr> from <args>)"): http://www.python.org/moin/AlternateLambdaSyntax
Cheers, Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
_______________________________________________
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
