better lambda support in the future?
steven.bethard at gmail.com
Fri Dec 17 22:51:28 CET 2004
Michael DeHaan wrote:
> True enough, but suppose you want a hash of anonymous functions as
> opposed to just a lexical?
I've seen at least one reasonable example of this kind of thing:
Though I haven't yet seen an example that actually required lambdas with
> Totally agreed about a small use here and there, but they do have some
> use in dispatch tables, as they are a lot easier to read sometimes
> than very long case statements. Of course, this would require
> multi-line lambdas to exist...
Certainly in the example above, I'd be willing to agree that the lambdas
are at least as readable as a buch of def's above would have been. I'm
not sure if multi-line lambdas would be as readable though... It all
depends on what syntax you write them in -- you can see the struggle I
went through in my other message... Where do I put the commas in a
dict? Can't be at the end of the lambda or they turn the last
expression into a tuple... I resorted to putting them on a separate
line, but of course there are other solutions.
If you have a good example of where you'd like to use multi-line
lambdas, in, say, a dispatch table, I'd like to take a look at how you'd
like to write them. I'm not yet convinced that there really is a
readable way to write such things...
More information about the Python-list