[Python-ideas] Syntactic sugar to declare partial functions

[Abe Dillon]

[Alex Walters]

> He is questioning the concept that the lambda keyword has caused any
> harm.  You assert that it caused minor harm.  Minor harm can still be real,
> significant, and non-trivial.

What, exactly, is the difference between "minor" and "non-trivial" and when
did I say the harm was "significant and non-trivial"?

[Alex Walters]

> You will find no evidence to support your argument.
>
You could read what I wrote to Neil Girdhar who was able to engage with me
without implying that I've lost my mind.

[Chris Angelico]

> If your reaction was extreme, saying so isn't attacking you.

Is this a hypothetical now? I said "*I think* they would (or do in the case
of 'lambda') harm Python." I wasn't aware the word "harm" was something
only deranged maniacs use.

[Chris Angelico]

> Explain, please, what the HARM is that comes from the use of the word
> "lambda".


I HAVE.

[Chris Angelico]

> Also, the signature is most decidedly NOT obvious from context

Who decided this? It's been decided by some committee? When you write a key
function, you don't know how many arguments are going to be passed?

[Chris Angelico]

> nor is it insignificant.


I never said it was. I just said that the logic is more important from the
standpoint of the reader.

[Chris Angelico]

> Putting it first gives context to the body of the
> function. Python made the correct choice here.


I disagree.

This forum is looking more and more toxic. I've explained myself over and
over again. I just wanted to +1 Steven's original comment. This is
ridiculous. I guess I've pissed of the good-old-boys by calling out
Steven's unnecessary condescension. Great. It looks like Python is in
fantastic hands.

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Abe Dillon <abedillon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Steven D'Aprano]
> >>
> >> Just because I challenge your statements doesn't mean I'm attacking you.
> >
> >
> > No. Telling me I'm having an extreme overreaction means you're attacking
> me.
>
> If your reaction was extreme, saying so isn't attacking you.
>
> > [Steven D'Aprano]
> >>
> >> You've said that the choice of keyword, "lambda", has caused harm. Given
> >> the chance to clarify what you meant, you stood by your comment that the
> >> choice of keyword "lambda" has done real, significant, non-trivial harm
> >> to Python (the language, or the community).
> >
> >
> > What are you talking about? I explained exactly what I meant:
> >
> >> I think there are better ways that anonymous functions could have been
> >> implemented.  I've already said in past discussions, I think the
> expression
> >> should come before the signature because the signature is often obvious
> from
> >> context so placing it before the logic is kinda noisy. I don't know
> what the
> >> best syntax would have been, but I refuse to believe that an esoteric
> word
> >> from an esoteric branch of calculus with an arbitrary etymology was the
> >> absolute best choice available. I think the harm that choice caused is
> >> relatively minor, but I don't think it was a great choice.
> >
> >
> > Notice: I never said "real, significant, non-trivial harm" anywhere in
> this
> > entire discussion. I never said anything close to that. Stop jamming
> > bullshit in my mouth to suit your narrative that I'm "extremely
> > overreacting". It's not cute.
>
> Explain, please, what the HARM is that comes from the use of the word
> "lambda". In contrast, using the word "function" does definitely have
> harm, because you can no longer use the name "function" as a variable
> or parameter.
>
> Also, the signature is most decidedly NOT obvious from context, nor is
> it insignificant. Putting it first gives context to the body of the
> function. Python made the correct choice here.
>
> > [Steven D'Aprano]
> >>
> >> But we ought to "check our privilege", as they say. I think that if we
> >> as a community automatically reject any word because it isn't "plain
> >> English", that would be a sign of unexamined privilege and quite rude to
> >> boot.
> >
> >
> > Rude? Who would it be rude to if we had chosen "anonfunc" instead of
> > "lambda"?
>
> No, but it's no less jargonny.
>
> > Very few of us are computer scientists by profession. That's not even
> where
> > 'lambda' comes from. In computer science, it's called an "anonymous
> > function". "lambda" comes from lambda calculus.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_function
>
> "In computer programming, an anonymous function (function literal,
> lambda abstraction, or lambda expression) is a function definition
> that is not bound to an identifier."
>
> So... I would say "lambda" is very firmly connected with anonymous
> functions.
>
> ChrisA
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20180812/9ffda4cc/attachment-0001.html>