Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> but if
>> you pass functions/lambdas around a lot it can be frustrating when you
>> get an error such as:
>>
>> TypeError: () takes exactly 2 arguments (1 given)
>>
>> and the traceback only tells you which line generated the TypeError, not
>> wh
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:12:23 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
> I take it you never feel the need to inspect tracebacks, nor insert a
> breakpoint or print statement at an arbitrary point in the code.
Nah, my code is always perfect, first time, every time.
*wink*
> Granted none of those may apply i
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> | I even use "named anonymous functions" *cough* by assigning lambda
|
>> functions to names:
>> |
>> | foo = lambda x: x+1
>>
>> Even though I consider the above to be clearly inferior to
>
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> | I even use "named anonymous functions" *cough* by assigning lambda |
> functions to names:
> |
> | foo = lambda x: x+1
>
> Even though I consider the above to be clearly inferior to
>
> def foo(x): return x+1
>
> since the latter names
"Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:35:30 -0800, Jeff Schwab wrote:
|
| > Every time somebody uses
| > lambda here, they seem to get a bunch "why are you using lambda?"
| > responses.
I think you are overgeneralizing ;-)
I use 'e
