better lambda support in the future?
robin at SPAMREMOVEjessikat.fsnet.co.uk
Sat Dec 18 16:38:10 CET 2004
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Jp Calderone" <exarkun at divmod.com> wrote in message
> news:20041218001106.1029.2092913511.divmod.quotient.12461 at ohm...
>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:16:08 -0500, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> For one-off uses not eligible for lambda treatment, where you really do not
> care about the name, use the same name, such as 'f', over and over, or a
> series such as f1, f2, ,,, or f,g,h. I have done all three in interactive
> Terry J. Reedy
I disagree, the existence of the name itself is information as is lack
of existence. If the name is absent there is an implication that it not
required. An unnecessary name is visual noise.
The thing that is probably a bit stupid about lambdas (I admit to having
done this) is
x = lambda a,b,c:.......
which could just as well be written
def x(a,b,c):return .........
with only a few extra characters.
More information about the Python-list