Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:36:24 +0000, Duncan Booth wrote:
>
>
>>Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>>This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
>>>form to assign an "anonymous function" (an object) to a
>>>name?
>>
>>Because it obfuscates your code for no benefit. You should avoid making it
>>hard for others to read your code (and 'others' includes yourself in the
>>future).
Use a descriptive name like this?
def get_the_cube_of_x_and_then_subtract_five_multiplied_by_x(x):
x**3 - 5*x
I think I like the lambda version here. ;-)
It would probably have a name which refers to the context in which it's
used, but sometimes the math expression it self is also the most readable.
> Put it this way: whenever I see a two-line def as above, I can't help
> feeling that it is a waste of a def. ("Somebody went to all the trouble
> to define a function for *that*?") Yet I would never think the same about
> a lambda -- lambdas just feel like they should be light-weight.
In the case of an interface module you might have a lot of two like
def's that simply change the name and argument format so several modules
can use it and have a standard consistent or simplified interface.
The lambda may be perfectly fine for that. But why not use def?
func_x = lambda x: (someother_func_x(x,'value'))
def func_x(x): return someother_func_x(x,'value')
There's both nearly identical, but the def is understandable to
beginners and advanced python programs.
Cheers,
Ron
> Am I just weird?
Aren't we all? ;-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
