(I apologize that this is my first post. Please don't flame me into
oblivion or think I'm a quack!)
Have you guys considered the following syntax for anonymous blocks? I
think it's possible to parse given Python's existing syntax:
items.doFoo(
def (a, b) {
return a + b
I apologize for sparking such debate on this list instead of on
c.l.py. By the way, the only reason I brought this up was as a
replacement for lambdas in Py3K.
Guido, in response to your much earlier comment about supporting "{}"
for normal defs as a matter of consistency within my proposal, yes,
> PS. a side effect of the for-in pattern is that I'm beginning to feel that
> Python
> might need a nice "switch" statement based on dictionary lookups, so I can
> replace multiple callbacks with a single loop body, without writing too many
> if/elif clauses.
That's funny. I keep wondering if "
On 4/20/05, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > PS. a side effect of the for-in pattern is that I'm beginning to feel
> > that Python
> > might need a nice "switch" statement based on dictionary lookups, so I can
> > replace multiple callbacks with a single loop body
On 4/21/05, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shannon -jj Behrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 4/20/05, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> My use case for switch is that of a parser switching on tokens.
> >>
&g
On 4/25/05, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
> > On 4/20/05, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >>
> >>>PS. a side effect of the for-in pattern is that I'm beg
