[Python-ideas] Ruby-style Blocks in Python Idea
tjreedy at udel.edu
Tue Mar 10 00:09:52 CET 2009
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009, Sturla Molden wrote:
>> I see no reason for introducing two new keywords to do this, as you are
>> really just enhancing the current lambda keyword.
>> On the other hand, turning blocks into anonymous functions would be very
>> useful for functional programming. As such, I like your suggestion.
> There's a substantial minority (possibly even a majority) in the Python
> community that abhors functional programming.
I am not one of them, if there really are such.
> Even among those who like functional programming,
> there's a substantial population that dislikes
> extensive use of anonymous functions.
Like many other Pythonistas I recognize that that an uninformative stock
name of '<lambda>' is defective relative to an informative name that
points back to readable code. What I dislike is the anonymity-cult
claim that the defect is a virtue.
Since I routinely use standard names 'f' and 'g' (from math) to name
functions whose name I do not care about, I am baffled (and annoyed) by
(repeated) claims such as "Having to name a one-off function adds
additional cognitive overload to a developer." (Tav). Golly gee, if one
cannot decide on standard one-char name, how can he manage the rest of
(I also, like others, routinely use 'C' for class and 'c' for C
instance. What next? A demand for anonymous classes? Whoops, I just
learned that Java has those.)
But I have no problem with the use of lambda expressions as a
convenience, where appropriate.
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-ideas