"Sybren Stuvel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > talin at acm dot org enlightened us with: >> I'd be sad to see the notion of "anonymous functions" go
Though it is as yet unclear as to what may come in compensation. > Same here. I think it's a beautyful concept Are you claiming that including a reference to the more humanly readable representation of a function (its source code) somehow detracts from the beauty of the function concept? Or are you claiming that binding a function to a name rather than some other access reference (like a list slot) somehow detracts from its conceptual beauty? Is so, would you say the same about numbers? It seems to me that the beauty of the function concept is quite independent of its definition syntax and post-definition access method. >, and very powerful. If anything, adding a source pointer to a function object makes it more, not less powerful. >> What about passing an anonymous function as an argument, >> which is the most common case? > > I don't really like that. The syntax is way too messy. I agree. > Just the > funcref = def(args): > ... > syntax would suffice for me. But this is deficient relative to def funcref(args): ... since the *only* difference is to substitute a generic tag (like '<lambda>') for a specific tag (like 'funcref') for the .func_name attribute. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
