On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Steven Bethard wrote: >Roman Suzi wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Steven Bethard wrote: >> >> >>>Roman Suzi wrote: >>> >>>>I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is >>>>dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for >>>>lambdas _with_ arguments, we could develop PEP 312 further. >>> >>>Some suggestions from recent lambda threads (I only considered the ones >>>that keep lambda as an expression): >> >> Wow! Is there any wiki-page these could be put on? > >It's now on: > >http://www.python.org/moin/AlternateLambdaSyntax > >and I added Bengt Richter's and your recent suggestions.
Hmmm... what if we kill two rabbits in one blow: lambda will be even more implicit, if we just mark parameters by a back-quote while using PEP 312 convention: (:f(`a) + o(`b) - o(`c)) (:`x * `x) (:x) (:x.bar(*`a, **`k)) Not sure about default args: ((fun(x=x, a=a, k=k): x(*a, **k)) for x, a, k in funcs_and_args_list) Maybe this needs to be done with closures. Otherwise I think Python interpreter is quite capable to determine which parameters the function has... Only their order become a problem. Probably, ","-s could be used there: (`a,`b,`c : f(`a) + o(`b) - o(`c)) The whole expressions could be quoted: `(x, y, z) meaning a parameter with such structure. >Steve > Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
