On Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:27:08 AM UTC-7, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> In practice, your proposal would not make life easier for Python
>
> programmers.
>
>
>
>
>
> Marko
neither did the lambda, yours truly supposes?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> tag_handler = {
>
> "span": lambda content: content,
>
> "div": lambda content: "\n"+content+"\n",
>
> "p": lambda content: "\n"+content+"\n",
>
> "br": lambda content: "\n",
>
> }
>
>
>
> If you wanted to expand one of those to have statements in it, you'd
>
> have to t
it is simply a matter of convenience:
def a():
print( "gvr" )
func(a);
or
func( def():
print("gvr")
)
it would be great if others could further share their opinions
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
reasonable, but I don't like the close parens on the same line; even
>
> if this syntax is allowed, I'd frown on it in style guides,
>
thanks, bu what exactly do you find unlikeable in this syntax? the ")" is no
new syntax, but simply a match for a previous "("; and you can put it anywhere
b
> reasonable, but I don't like the close parens on the same line; even
>
> if this syntax is allowed, I'd frown on it in style guides,
>
thanks, bu what exactly do you find unlikeable in this syntax? the ")" is no
new syntax, but simply a match for a previous "("; and you can put it anywhere
Hi, just wanting to do a shot in the dark,but maybe this syntax is Pythonic (in
a "we-are-all-grown-ups" fashion, ahem)enough to get its way into the language
this is what yours truly thinks: don't we all know that ":" means the next
token must be an indent (mostly)? and doesn't the "(" and its a
