"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?
Huh? Anonymous functions mean you can use functions as values by spelling out their source code directly, instead of having to make a separate reference and then pass that. There are times when the separate reference is just clutter. It's less readable, not more readable. > 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? Yes, I would say the same about numbers; Python would suffer if users were required to give a name to every number. I'd say x = f(1, 3) is much less ugly than one = 1 three = 3 x = f(one, three) I further don't see how the second example is more "readable" than the first. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
