Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > > > if anonymous functions are available, they're used in even more > > cases where naming would help > > Yes, you're right. But don't stop here. What about expressions? Many > people write very complex expression, that are hard to understand. A > good language should forbid these abuse and don't allow expressions > with more than 2 or maybe 3 operators!
That would _complicate_ the language (by adding a rule). I repeat what I've already stated repeatedly: a good criterion for deciding which good practices a language should enforce and which ones it should just facilitate is _language simplicity_. If the enforcement is done by adding rules or constructs it's probably not worth it; if the "enforcements" is done by NOT adding extra constructs it's a double win (keep the language simpler AND push good practices). Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
