what's wrong with "lambda x : print x/60,x%60"

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-12-06, bonono at gmail.com schreef <bonono at gmail.com>:
>
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2005-12-06, bonono at gmail.com schreef <bonono at gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > Paul Rubin wrote:
>> >> > Why use temporary variables when all you have to do is make your
>> >> > expressions three lines long to avoid "polluting the namespace"?
>> >>
>> >> Indeed.  I'd much rather say
>> >>
>> >>   x = a + b + (c * d) + e
>> >>
>> >> than
>> >>
>> >>   temp1 = a + b
>> >>   temp2 = c * d
>> >>   temp3 = temp1 + temp2
>> >>   x = temp3 + e
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand why the critics of lambda don't understand that
>> >> having to use so many temp variables, for either numbers or functions,
>> >> can work against both concision and clarity.
>> >
>> > For some people, the second form is clearer.
>>
>> But there is no suggestion that this should be the obligatory form.
>
> I think there is, for python. Not that I agree with it. The language
> doesn't prevent you from using the short one-liner style but the idioms
> prefer the line by line(and one single op/action per line) style.
>

That is odd, because I remember very well that at one time I was using
such a line by line approach and it was almost regarded as a bug.

The only difference of relevance between the above was that the last
line was a call, instead of an assignment.

The prime argument for why such a style was not done, was that it
kept all kinds of references to temporary results active, which
meant they couldn't be recycled by the garbage collector.

-- 
Antoon Pardon