Nick Coghlan wrote: > ...rather than pushing to retain lambda for Py3K, it might > be more productive to find a better statement -> expression > translation for function definitions. Guido seems to prefer > named functions, so it would still be tough to gain his > acceptance. However, a more Pythonic syntax is the only way > I can see anonymous functions making into 3.0 > > The current best example of a statement->expression translation > is generator expressions: > > def squares(seq) > for x in seq: > yield x * x > > total = sum(squares(seq)) > > versus: > > total = sum(x * x for x in seq) > > If we consider a function definition (omitting decorators > and docstrings) we get: > > def foo(a, b, c): > return f(a) + o(b) - o(c) > > accepts_func(foo) > > What would a Pythonic 'function as expression' look like?
Or simply: accepts_func( (f(a) + o(b) - o(c) for a, b, c) ) ...but that would give whomever writes the parser a headache. ;) Robert Brewer MIS Amor Ministries [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
