On 12 Jun., 20:17, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 12, 11:36 am, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Jun., 16:54, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 12, 10:12 am, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Jun., 14:57, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Remember that the *only* difference between the two functions is that > > > > > one is anonymous, and for other you have to came up with a name (name > > > > > that if is well thought, actually adds readibility to your code). > > > > > The difference is that one can be inlined since it is an expression > > > > and the other has to be a statement and a reusable ( named ) > > > > abstraction even when you don't need one. I have a very hard time to > > > > defend this as a good design decision even when it is just a minor > > > > pain point in almost all my practical purposes. > > > > I think of it more as a "necessary evil" rather than a conscious > > > design choice. IIRC the "official" justification is that nobody came > > > up with an acceptable syntax for multiline lambdas; > > > Translating this into unofficial language: Guido just didn't care a > > lot about lambda and found no one of the alternative proposals > > compelling. If he's actually interested in a language feature he fixes > > syntax quite fast. > > > > TOOWTDI is a > > > secondary reason (as one can easily come up with a dozen TOOWTDI > > > violations in other parts of the language). I agree though that in > > > practice it's a very small limitation. > > > > George > > > But in the case we are discussing here it is really not obvious. > > That's why the community as well as the public opinion when discussing > > Python returns to the topic every once in a while. We agree about this > > issue being a minor limitation but I'd vote nevertheless +1 for either > > removing lambda or liberating it from the restriction of containing an > > expressions only. > > Here we disagree; I prefer the crippled* lambda that covers the > majority of my needs for inlined functions anyway than the purist all- > or-nothing approach. YMMV.
If you'd design a new language, George, would you introduce a crippled lambda because it "fits my needs"? Note we can focus on Python 3.0 which can be regarded as a new programming language following the assumption of eliminating warts of an older one. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
