Guys, this thread is not Python-Dev territory. It should have gone to
Python-Ideas. I repeat what I posted two days ago:
Proposals for changes to syntax and functionality are normally
expected to gather feedback on python-ideas before coming to
python-dev for final approval or reject
> -Original Message-
> From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+anikom15=gmail@python.org] On
> Behalf Of Ben Finney
> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 12:56 PM
> To: python-dev@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Use an empty def as a lambda
>
>
Westley Martínez writes:
> My reasoning is that we use class to make classes, lambda to make
> lambda functions, and def to make--well not defs--functions, which
> doesn't really make sense to me.
Your reasoning is flawed. There is no such thing in Python as a “lambda
function”.
Python has func
ift'; python-dev@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Use an empty def as a lambda
>
> Change def to func? That's the worst idea I've heard yet. Def is already
> there; why break all existing code just for a word?
>
>
> "Westley Martínez" wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 12:55:20 -0500, Ryan wrote:
> "Westley MartÃnez" wrote:
> >'def' is no more ambiguous than 'lambda', and is in fact more
> >ambiguous,
> >for 'def' doesn't lend itself to anything other than the word define,
> >whilst 'lambda' can only mean lambda function. Calling def expli
Change def to func? That's the worst idea I've heard yet. Def is already there;
why break all existing code just for a word?
"Westley Martínez" wrote:
>'def' is no more ambiguous than 'lambda', and is in fact more
>ambiguous,
>for 'def' doesn't lend itself to anything other than the word define
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ben Gift wrote:
> I think the lambda keyword is difficult to understand for many people. It
> would be more pythonic to use an empty def call instead.
I agree, but that ship has sailed, at least until the time when Python
2 is dead. I don't want these kinds of sy
'def' is no more ambiguous than 'lambda', and is in fact more ambiguous,
for 'def' doesn't lend itself to anything other than the word define,
whilst 'lambda' can only mean lambda function. Calling def explicit is
silly. It only makes sense because def arbitrarily means a function in
Python (I'm
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 01:54:08PM -0700, Ben Gift wrote:
> I think the lambda keyword is difficult to understand for many people. It
> would be more pythonic to use an empty def call instead.
Hi Ben, and welcome! Is this your first post? I'm afraid I don't
recognise your name.
I think this disc
Nice idea, BUT...
Not sure how a parser addition that supports it would go. Imagine this: if
you did a one-line function:
def test(x): print(x)
Python could interpret it two ways:
`def` `name` `lparen` `name` `rparen` `colon`...
OR, it could see it as a lambda-like thingamajig and throw a synt
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Ben Gift wrote:
> It would be more pythonic to use an empty def call instead.
No, it won't. Python draws a very strong distinction between expressions
and statements. This line has been blurred somewhat with the advent of
comprehensions and the if-else expres
I think it's a great idea personally. It's explicit and obvious. "lamda" is
too computer sciencey
On Sep 19, 2013 1:55 PM, "Ben Gift" wrote:
> I think the lambda keyword is difficult to understand for many people. It
> would be more pythonic to use an empty def call instead.
>
> For instance this
On 20 Sep 2013 07:04, "Joe Pinsonault" wrote:
>
> I think it's a great idea personally. It's explicit and obvious. "lamda"
is too computer sciencey
This suggestion has been made many times, occasionally with the associated
"must be contained in parentheses when used as an expression" caveat that
On 2013-09-19, at 23:17 , Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2013 07:04, "Joe Pinsonault" wrote:
>>
>> I think it's a great idea personally. It's explicit and obvious. "lamda"
> is too computer sciencey
>
> This suggestion has been made many times, occasionally with the associated
> "must be conta
14 matches
Mail list logo
