Hi. I'm sure there've been debates about this before, but I can't seem
to figure out what to search for to pull them up, so I'm asking here.
It seems to me that a lot of things could be made much easier if you
could use primaries other than basic identifiers for the target of
function definitions.
Thanks for your comments.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52, Gary Herron wrote:
> > [...]
>
> There's no need for a specific addition to the syntax to do this.
>
> Try this:
>
> def foo_bar():
> return(...)
> foo.bar = foo_bar
>
>> [...]
>
> and this:
>
> def foo_bar():
> return(...
> Things like your suggestion are called "syntactic-sugar" -- syntax that
> adds a convenience, but *no* new functionality. Python has plenty of
> "syntactic-sugar"s, and more will be added in the future. To make an
> argument for such an addition, one would have to describe some compelling
> (a
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 13:03, John Krukoff wrote:
> You probably want to be searching for multi-line lambda to find the past
> decade or so of this argument, as that's where most people who argued
> for this came from. But, if you'd just like a bit of discouragement,
> here's GvR arguing that the
On Apr 23, 5:23 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Jeremy Banks wrote:
> > Hi. I'm sure there've been debates about this before, but I can't seem
> > to figure out what to search for to pull them up, so I'm asking here.
>
> > It seems to me that a lot of thing
Hi. I wondered if anyone knew the rationale behind the naming of the
Popen class in the subprocess module. Popen sounds like the a suitable
name for a function that created a subprocess, but the object itself is
a subprocess, not a "popen". It seems that it would be more accurate to
just name t
