On 13.07.2016 10:51, Paul Moore wrote:
On 13 July 2016 at 05:00, Steven D'Aprano
wrote: Not too many people like Cobol-like spelling:
add 1 to the_number
over "n += 1". So I think that arguments for keeping "traditional spelling" are mostly about familiarity. If we learned lambda calculus in high school, perhaps λ would be less exotic. It's probably also relevant in this context that more "modern" languages tend to avoid the term lambda but embrace "anonymous functions" with syntax such as
(x, y) -> x+y
or whatever.
So while "better syntax for lambda expressions" is potentially a reasonable goal, I don't think that perpetuating the concept/name "lambda" is necessary or valuable.
Exactly, there's not much value in having yet another way of writing 'lambda:'. Keeping other languages in mind and the conservative stance Python usually takes, the arrow ('=>') would be the only valid alternative for a "better syntax for lambda expressions". However, IIRC, this has been debated and won't happen. Personally, I have other associations with λ. Thus, I would rather see it as a variable name in such contexts.
Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/