Note: Whatever fancy stuff you are doing to your messages is totally messing up trying to reply to you. On 03/02/2016 04:19 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
Not only did you get the syntax wrong,
Ah, I see that I did. Oops.
but the lambda version is also horrid which is exacerbated by the fact that it looks like your trying to give the function a name or otherwise store it which defeats whole purpose of a lambda.
If I was giving it a name I would use `def`. I am storing it, and that is a very common use of lambdas (to be fair, I stole one line from a multi-line dictionary definition).
At that point just use 'def' and stop trying to use lambda where it is ill suited.
This is exactly where lambda is suited.
the idea is from the recipe metaphor for a function:
def <recipe>(<ingredients>): ...instructions to cook ingredients
vs.
(
from <ingredients>)
Huh. Well, it looks good like that, but the actual examples were quite jarring to me.
It's fair to quibble over the exact implementation (maybe use 'with' instead of 'from') but the main point of the syntax it to put the important bit (i.e.the expression) in front of the (usually) unimportant bit (i.e. the signature) and to swap out an esoteric word (lambda) with something that continues the readability emphasis of Python by using
Yeah, it would be better with `with`. But, really, I don't see it happening -- the whole anonymous function thing is not encouraged, so making it easier is not a goal. I wonder if MacroPy[1] would let you try it out? -- ~Ethan~ [1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/MacroPy