Ideas for Python 3

[Josiah Carlson]

> The problem with this suggestion ( and many other similar uses of
> existing functions ) is that it relies on a regular mathematical
> sequence.  Think of a more general case, something like:
> 
> L = [:x:x**2, :x:x+4, :x:x/5, :x:2-x, :x:x*7 ]

Ick.


> Q1) Is it worth having a "lambda" syntax like this, or should we just
> deprecate lambda functions entirely and use:
> 
> def f1(x): return x**2
> def f2(x): return x+4
> def f3(x): return x/5
> def f4(x): return 2-x
> def f5(x): return x*7
> L = [ f1, f2, f3, f4, f5 ]

Don't deprecate lambda.  I know Guido is hot to do so, and believes it a 
mistake to have in the first place, but is it really hurting anyone? 
Sure, those who don't know how to use them, but the barrier for entry is 
quite low.


> Q2) Will it help new users to have the "lambda" syntax be as close as
> possible to a normal function definition?  i.e.
> 
> f :(x): return x**2  # a simple function
> :x:x**2              # equivalent lambda expression
> 
> -- or --
> 
> f = def(x): return x**2
> def x:x**2

Ick on the four options just given.


> I am especially interested in feedback from users who have recently
> learned Python.  I suspect that many experienced users will have long
> forgotten any difficulties they had while learning.

Lerning lambda expressions are trivial when you have experience with 
derivatives of LISP.  While I generally don't like to point users off to 
go RTFM, in this case, 5 minutes of manual reading (without LISP 
experience) will go a long way toward understanding lambda expressions.

  - Josiah