On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:12:23 +0000, Duncan Booth wrote: > I take it you never feel the need to inspect tracebacks, nor insert a > breakpoint or print statement at an arbitrary point in the code.
Nah, my code is always perfect, first time, every time. *wink* > Granted none of those may apply in this particular simple case, This sort of simple case is the one where I would use lambda. > but if > you pass functions/lambdas around a lot it can be frustrating when you > get an error such as: > > TypeError: <lambda>() takes exactly 2 arguments (1 given) > > and the traceback only tells you which line generated the TypeError, not > which lambda was involved. On the other hand: In the simple cases I'm talking about, there is only one lambda in scope at a time. If that were not the case, I'd use def. > TypeError: parrot_func() takes exactly 2 arguments (1 given) > > while it might not identify the function uniquely in all situations at > least tells you something useful about the function being called. Sure. For a more complicated case where I'm passing the function around a lot, def is the way to go. Likewise if the function is complex, I'd use def instead of trying to cram the whole algorithm into a single expression for lambda. I'm not saying that I never use nested def, only that I sometimes assign lambdas to names. And why not? A lambda function is a first class object like everything else :) -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
