Terry Hancock wrote:
> With list comprehensions and generators becoming so integral, I'm
> not sure about "unpythonic". And a syntax just occured to me --
> what about this:
>
> [y*x for x,y]
>
> ?
>
> (that is:
>
> [<expression> for <argument list>]
>
> It's just like the beginning of a list comprehension or generator, but
> without the iterator. That implies that one must be given, and
> the result is therefore a callable object.
As others have mentioned, this looks too much like a list comprehension
to be elegant, which also rules out () and {}... but I really do like
the infix syntax.
Perhaps using angle-brackets would be useful? These have no
grouping-meaning in Python that I'm aware of. Example,
<y*x for x,y>
I'd also prefer using 'with' rather than 'for' as the keyword -- 'with'
doesn't suggest iteration. I also suggest parenthization of the
argument list, since that makes a zero-argument lambda not look weird.
To replicate the examples from
http://wiki.python.org/moin/AlternateLambdaSyntax
1 lambda a, b, c:f(a) + o(b) - o(c)
<f(a) + o(b) - o(c) with (a, b, c)>
2 lambda x: x * x
<x * x with (x)>
3 lambda : x
<x with ()>
4 lambda *a, **k: x.bar(*a, **k)
<x.bar(*a, **k) with (*a, **k)>
5 ((lambda x=x, a=a, k=k: x(*a, **k)) for x, a, k in funcs_and_args_list)
(<x(*a,**k) with (x=x, a=a, k=k)> for x, a, k in funcs_and_args_list)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
