[Python-ideas] Ruby-style Blocks in Python Idea
tjreedy at udel.edu
Tue Mar 10 21:00:50 CET 2009
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Terry Reedy writes:
> > 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.
> That's unfair.
It is unfair to dislike false statements?
I think that *that* is unfair ;-)
> Python has "anonymous blocks" all over the place,
> since every control structure controls one or more of them. It simply
> requires that they be forgotten at the next DEDENT. Surely you don't
> advocate that each of them should get a name!
Surely, I did not. And surely you cannot really think I suggested such.
Every expression and every statement or group of statements defines a
function on the current namespaces, but I was talking about Python
function objects. And I never said that they necessarily should get an
individual name (and indeed I went on to say that I too use 'f' and 'g'
as stock, don't-care names) but only that I dislike the silly claim that
being named '<lambda>' is a virtue. And this was in the context you
snipped of Aahz saying that some disliked the *use* of lambda
expressions (as opposed to the promotion of their result as superior).
> I think this is a difference of cognition.
I do not think it a 'difference of cognition', in the usual sense of the
term, to think that a more informative traceback is a teeny bit
superior, and certainly not inferior, to a less informative traceback.
Unless of course you mean that all disagreements are such.
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-ideas