Simo Melenius wrote: >> Ahem. If you name the function, you can reuse the name (or just >> forget about it) as soon as you've used the function object. > > Sure, but mental pollution counts too IMO. What you write and what you > read must go through your brain, including dummy variables. And next > you start thinking how to "hide" it from your own mind (e.g. naming it > "_my_local_func" or something as ugly as the leading underscores in > it).
use something short, like "f". hopefully, a single character won't overload your brain. > And I think that it does, in fact, touch the innermost symbol table > too, even if the case is optimized out by the compiler -- is it? yes, but the overhead of keeping a local slot updated is very small, especially compared to all the work Python's doing to create a new function object. (or did you mean that you're trying to keep the entire symbol table in your head? I think my point was that you don't really have to do that; just concentrate on what's close to the code you're reading) > Why do something for the sake of not actually having to do it? not sure I parsed that one correctly, but when I name functions, I usually do that because it makes my code cleaner, more self-describing, gives it a better visual layout, makes it easier to modify/maintain, makes it easier to set breakpoints or add debugging statements, etc. "lambda blocks" can address some of that, but not all of it. </F> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
