On 2/20/22, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > BTW, this is not what is usually meant by the term "anonymous > function". An anonymous function is one that is not bound > to *any* name. The thing you're proposing wouldn't be > anonymous -- it would have a name, that name being the empty > string.
Sorry. I read Avi's reply first, scanned the original post and didn't consider the literal question. I doubt that Python would have become a popular language if it allowed the empty string as an identifier. That would let common syntax errors slip past the compiler with useless results, e.g `= 1`, `c. = 1`. It's no less absurd in a `def` statement. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
