Hello, On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:55:16 +0300 Paul Sokolovsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 21:36:25 -0800 > Guido van Rossum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > but I think it'd probably be > > > better to use similar syntax to C#, Java, and Javascript instead, > > > and use () -> [12] or () => 12... > > > > > > > Agreed. I'd prefer the JavaScript solution, since -> already has a > > different meaning in Python return *type*. We could use -> to > > simplify typing.Callable, and => to simplify lambda. > > Great to hear there's no desire to stray away from JavaScript just for > the purpose of being different. ... And on the 2nd thought, that won't work. The reason it works in JS is that it doesn't have tuples. In Python, "(a, b) => (1, 2)" means "compare a tuple for greater-or-equal". But fear not, we can steal "lambda operator" from Haskell: \(a, b): (1, 2) Or... we can do nothing, and just promote macro usage in Python, because it's trivial to replace "lambda" with actual unicode lambda character (or anything else for that matter, for as long as "anything else" is not an empty string and not ambiguous with already existing constructs): https://aroberge.github.io/ideas/docs/html/lambda.html [] -- Best regards, Paul mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/FWQZHNEGZ4OVGZPQCJB3BERRKU354HXF/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
