Erik <pyt...@lucidity.plus.com> writes:
> The thing about functions or classes is that you can't (at the literal
> source level) define them *without* giving them a name:
Even a function is commonly defined without giving it a name.
>>> strategies = [
... (lambda x: x + 2),
... (lambda x: x ** 3),
... (lambda x: None),
... ]
>>> type(strategies[0])
<class 'function'>
The objects in that list exist, they are functions, and there is no name
referencing any of them.
So yes, it's normal to define a function without giving it a name. (And
it is also normal to define a function with a name.)
(I'm not aware of anything equivalent for class definition; certainly
nothing as commonly used as ‘lambda’ for defining a function. And maybe
that's a good thing.)
> But lists and tuples and ints and strings and dicts and sets and
> floats and probably something else I've forgotten can be spelled as
> anonymous literals.
And that includes functions, too.
The idea of a “variable” dies hard, it seems. Objects don't always need
names, and Python programmers just have to learn to live with that.
--
\ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does |
`\ knowledge.” —Charles Darwin, _The Descent of Man_, 1871 |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
