Draft Pep (was: Re: Let's Talk About Lambda Functions!)

[John Roth]

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:Q7y39.76426$vg.2925921 at bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress at nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:3D4E2E87.9070308 at nowhere.org...
> > I tried to do that in a previous response.  Python should have a
> > procedure builder which does not assign the procedure to a name,
> because
> > procedure in Python are first-class values and do not have intrinsic
> > names.
>
> All objects in Python are first class, at least in most regards
> (exceptions?).  Most do not have names as a property of the object.
> They either do not need one or there is not an obvious candidate.  But
> there are three exceptions -- functions (usually), classes, and
> modules.  The purpose is to provide a string representation that
> directs one to the source code that defined the object, since this is
> usually what one wants instead of a literal representation of the
> object as with numbers, strings, and containers.

Thank you. A very useful clarification. However, if that's the
case, wouldn't it be better if whatever was stored (at least for
classes and functions) was a simple pointer into the file to where
it was defined?

John Roth