PEP 312 - Making lambdas implicit worries me, surely it's just the name 'lambda' that is bad...

Erik Max Francis max at
Sun Mar 2 22:28:47 CET 2003

Stephen Horne wrote:

> As the title says, making lambdas implicit worries me - just because a
> parser will not find them ambiguous, it doesn't mean I won't!

Indeed.  I don't see what the tangible benefit is, except by making a
certain style of lambdas harder to read.  One might object to the use of
lambdas on general grounds, but certainly when you see the keyword
`lambda' you know what you're in for.  PEP 312 attempts to blur that
distinction, for no other reason than to save keystrokes and make code
look more impenetrable.  I don't see the benefit.

It seems to me that on general grounds, is Guido really did indeed
regret adding lambdas to the language, the chances of this PEP getting
past him are nil.  What's worse than a lambda?  A lambda that is
cleverly hiding.

 Erik Max Francis / max at /
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Mona Lisa / Come to discover / I am your daughter
\__/ Lamya
    Fauxident /
 A "faux" ident daemon in Python.

More information about the Python-list mailing list