dieter writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > ... Rather, the motivation was that a complex thing, with many
> > moving parts, has an unexplained implementation: a nested set of
> > functions without names to explain their part in the pattern.
>
> In a
Ben Finney writes:
> ...
> Rather, the motivation was that a complex thing, with many moving parts,
> has an unexplained implementation: a nested set of functions without
> names to explain their part in the pattern.
In a previous reply, I have tried to explain
Ben Bacarisse writes:
> By replying I'm not accepting the premise -- I have no idea if there
> is widespread fear and suspicion of lambdas among Python users but it
> seems unlikely.
I can testify, as the person who started this thread, that there is no
fear or suspicion
dieter writes:
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> I don’t know why this fear and suspicion of lambdas is so widespread among
>>> Python users ... former Java/C# programmers, perhaps?
By replying I'm not accepting the premise -- I have no idea if there is
widespread fear and
Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> writes:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:03:08 PM UTC+12, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to see a more Pythonic, more explicit and expressive
>>> replacement with its component parts easily understood.
>>
>> I don’t know why
Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 7:26:01 PM UTC+12, Peter Otten wrote:
>> foo = lambda :
>>
>> there is syntactic sugar in Python that allows you to write it as
>>
>> def foo():
>> return
>>
>> with the nice side effects that it improves the readability of
On Thursday 30 June 2016 17:43, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 7:26:01 PM UTC+12, Peter Otten wrote:
>> foo = lambda :
>>
>> there is syntactic sugar in Python that allows you to write it as
>>
>> def foo():
>> return
>>
>> with the nice side effects that it
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 7:26:01 PM UTC+12, Peter Otten wrote:
> foo = lambda :
>
> there is syntactic sugar in Python that allows you to write it as
>
> def foo():
> return
>
> with the nice side effects that it improves the readability of tracebacks
> and allows you to provide a
Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 5:03:08 PM UTC+12, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> I would like to see a more Pythonic, more explicit and expressive
>> replacement with its component parts easily understood.
>
> I don’t know why this fear and suspicion of lambdas is so