[Python-Dev] code blocks using 'for' loops and generators
sabbey at u.washington.edu
Tue Mar 15 21:41:03 CET 2005
Samuele Pedroni wrote:
> My point is that a suite-based syntax
> can only be a half substitute for lambda and anyway requiring a suite
> seems overkill and unnatural for the just 1 expression case, for example
> predicates. IOW a suite-based syntax is not a lambda killer in itself, I
> would not try to stress that point.
I see your point (also I see Greg Ewing's related point).
> multiple dispatch has nothing to do with syntax, in fact usual call
> syntax is sufficient, and people do use multiple dispatch sometimes,
> and decorators now can be even used to sugar up the definition side
> of it.
But one needs to use decorators or some other mechanism for the sugar,
that is all I intended the phrase "does not give syntactic support" to
mean. Perhaps "syntactic sugar" is the correct term to have used.
>> for something that would be rarely used, I do not think
> well that's up to discussion to discover
> well, but this is stated without even trying to come up with a syntax
> for that case. Notice that the first time around Guido himself would
> have preferred if achievable a multithunk syntax, he obviously can have
> changed his mind. But, yes, syntax vs expressivity is the key issue here.
Ok. Allow me to try. Up to a choice of (or existence of!) keywords, the
simplest to me is:
def add(thunk1, thunk2, other):
print thunk1(1,2) + thunk2(3,4) + other
with x,y from add(100):
also a,b: # yikes??
value a*b # this is thunk2
More information about the Python-Dev