On Friday 01 July 2005 03:36 pm, Ron Adam wrote:
> I find map too limiting, so won't miss it. I'm +0 on removing lambda
> only because I'm unsure that there's always a better alternative.
Seems like some new idioms would have to be coined, like:
def my_function(a1, a2):
def _(a,b): return a+b
call_a_lib_w_callback(callback=_)
doesn't seem too bad, and defeats the "wasting time thinking of names"
argument.
> So what would be a good example of a lambda that couldn't be replaced?
I suspect the hardest would be building a list of functions. Something
like:
powers = [lambda a, i=i: a**i for i in range(10)]
which you might be able to make like this:
powers = []
for i in range(10):
def _(a,i=i): return a**i
powers.append(_)
which works and is understandable, but a bit less concise.
The main obstacle to the lambda style here is that def statements
are not expressions. I think that's been proposed as an alternative,
too -- make def return a value so you could say:
powers = [def _(a,i=i): return a**i for i in range(10)]
Personally, I think this is understandable, and given that lambda
is to be pulled, a nice substitute (I would say it is easier to read
than the current lambda syntax, and easier for a newbie to
understand).
But it would probably encourage some bad habits, such as:
myfunc = def _(a,b):
print a,b
return a+b
which looks too much like Javascript, to me, where there are
about three different common idioms for defining a
function (IIRC). :-/
--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
