On dim., Mar 31, 2019 at 6:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:32 AM Alexey Muranov
<alexey.mura...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On ven., Mar 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org
wrote:
>
> There could perhaps be a special case for lambda expressions such
> that,
> when they are directly assigned to a variable, Python would use
the
> variable name as the function name. I expect this could be
> accomplished by
> a straightforward transformation of the AST, perhaps even by just
> replacing
> the assignment with a def statement.
If this will happen, that is, if in Python assigning a
lambda-defined
function to a variable will mutate the function's attributes, or
else,
if is some "random" syntactically-determined cases
f = ...
will stop being the same as evaluating the right-hand side and
assigning the result to "f" variable, it will be a fairly good extra
reason for me to go away from Python.
Is there a particular reason you don't like this? It's not too
different
from the syntactic magic Python already employs to support the
0-argument
form of super().
I do not want any magic in a programming language i use, especially if
it breaks simple rules.
I do not like 0-argument `super()` either, but at least I do not have
to use it. I am suspicious of `__class__` too. But here only
identifiers are hacked, not the assignment operator. (I suppose the
hack can be unhacked by using your own meta-class with a custom
`__prepare__`.)
Neither i like how a function magically turns into a generator if the
keyword `yield` appears somewhere within its definition.
Those are the things i don't like the most in Python.
Alexey.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
