Steven Bethard wrote:
> If you're really afraid of two lines, write it as:
>
> def r(): randint(1, 100)
>
> This is definitely a bad case for an anonymous function because it's not
> anonymous! You give it a name, r.
This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
form to assign an "anonymous function" (an object) to a
name?
It isn't just that lambda _can_ create functions that
aren't bound to any name. That I get. But why is it
suppose to be wrong to bind such a function to a name?
Sure, if the lambda is so complicated that it becomes
unreadable, the usage case is wrong and a def should be
used instead. But I see nothing wrong with doing this:
func = lambda x: x**3 - 3*x**2
Why is it considered abuse of lambda to assign the
functions to a name? Is it an abuse of lambda to do this?
D = {"one": lambda noun: noun,
"two": lambda noun: noun + 's',
"many": lambda noun: 'lots of ' + noun + 's' }
assert D["two"]("python") == "pythons"
--
Steven.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
