I V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:19:58 -0400, Bill Atkins wrote: >> There are also cases where a function is so trivial that the simplest >> way to describe it is with its source code, where giving it a name and >> putting it at the beginning of a function is just distracting and >> time-consuming. E.g.: >> >> (remove-if (lambda (name) >> (find #\- name :test #'char=)) >> list-of-names) >> >> What's the sense of giving that function its own name? It's much >> clearer to simply write it in place. Yes, it's _possible_ to use >> named functions, but in this case its functionality is so simple that >> it's clearer to simply type it in place. Why is this expressiveness a >> bad thing, aside from its power to wreck an indentation-significant >> language? > > Well, you can do that with python's current, > non-indentation-significance-wrecking, lambda syntax, so I don't think > that's a particularly persuasive example. Note also that the only > limitation python has on where you can define functions is that you can't > define them inside expressions (they have to be statements), so you could > define a named function right before the call to remove-if, which removes > some of the advantage you get from the lambda (that is, the function > definition is not very far from when it's used). > > Actually, I think the limitation on python that is operative here is not > significant whitespace, but the distinction between statements and > expressions. > > (crossposts trimmed)
You're right, I was replying to Alex's assertion that "there is nothing useful I can do with anonymous functions that I cannot do with named ones." -- This is a song that took me ten years to live and two years to write. - Bob Dylan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
