Op 2005-01-24, Nick Coghlan schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Steven Bethard wrote: >> That is, you can just keep track of all the names of a Robot in the >> Robot object. In the simple case, where there's only one name, you can >> display it as such. In the more complicated case, where there's some >> aliasing, you can display the multiple aliases. This means you don't >> have to teach about aliasing right off the bat, but if a student >> accidentally discovers it on their own, the machinery's there to explain >> it... > > Incidentally, this discussion made me realise the real reason why using a > lambda > to create a named function is evil:
It is not a named function, it is just a lamda that is assigned to a name. > > Py> def f(): pass > ... > Py> f.func_name > 'f' > Py> f = lambda: None > Py> f.func_name > '<lambda>' > > I think I've heard that explanation before, but it never really clicked. I just don't see what is so evil about it. Why is it so trouble some that a function wouldn't have a name, while most objects don't have a name. Why is it a problem doing something like: f = lambda: None But isn't it a problem doing something like v = None. Why don't we demand something like Py> assign v: None Py> v.obj_name 'v' -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
