On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:11:51 -0800, Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Hm, this didn't go out for some reason. I'll just send it now.]
>Roman Suzi wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is too outlandish, but I see lambdas as a "quote" mechanism,
>> which presents a possibility to postpone (precisely con
Bengt Richter wrote:
I like the fact that 'def' can serve as a mnemonic for 'defer' or 'deferred' ;-)
Yeah, me too. I didn't actually notice that until after I'd thought of the
phrase.
OTOH, I like concise notation for expressions, and the def and from aren't
really necessary if you can tag the fi
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:31:37 +1000, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steven Bethard wrote:
>> Nick Coghlan: def-from syntax [4]
>> (def f(a) + o(b) - o(c) from (a, b, c))
>> (def x * x from (x))
>> (def x from ())
>> (def x.bar(*a, **k) from (*a, **k))
>> ((def x(*a, **k) from ()) for x, a
Robert Brewer wrote:
Michael Spencer wrote:
I believe that this "possibility to postpone" divides into
two related but separate concepts: controlling the moment
of evaluation, and assembling the arguments required at
that moment. They are both species of 'eval', but
managing arguments is more sp
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Michael Spencer wrote:
>Roman Suzi wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is too outlandish, but I see lambdas as a "quote" mechanism,
>> which presents a possibility to postpone (precisely control, delegate)
>> evaluation. That is, an ovehead for lambda must be much lower but at the
>> same t
Michael Spencer wrote:
> Roman Suzi wrote:
>
> > Maybe this is too outlandish, but I see lambdas as a
> "quote" mechanism,
> > which presents a possibility to postpone (precisely
> control, delegate)
> > evaluation. That is, an ovehead for lambda must be much
> lower but at the
> > same time vi
Roman Suzi wrote:
Maybe this is too outlandish, but I see lambdas as a "quote" mechanism,
which presents a possibility to postpone (precisely control, delegate)
evaluation. That is, an ovehead for lambda must be much lower but at the
same time visible to the programmer:
d = a + (lambda x, y: x+ y)
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Steven Bethard wrote:
>Roman Suzi wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Steven Bethard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roman Suzi wrote:
>>>
I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is
dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for
l
Roman Suzi wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Steven Bethard wrote:
Roman Suzi wrote:
I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is
dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for
lambdas _with_ arguments, we could develop PEP 312 further.
Some suggest
Bengt Richter wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:54:06 GMT, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roman Suzi wrote:
I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is
dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for
lambdas _with_ arguments, we could
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Steven Bethard wrote:
> Roman Suzi wrote:
> > I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is
> > dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for
> > lambdas _with_ arguments, we could develop PEP 312 further.
>
> Some suggest
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:54:06 GMT, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roman Suzi wrote:
>> I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is
>> dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for
>> lambdas _with_ arguments, we could develop PEP
Steven Bethard wrote:
Nick Coghlan: def-from syntax [4]
(def f(a) + o(b) - o(c) from (a, b, c))
(def x * x from (x))
(def x from ())
(def x.bar(*a, **k) from (*a, **k))
((def x(*a, **k) from ()) for x, a, k in funcs_and_args_list)
After a bit more musing, this is definitely my preferred syntax. I'd
Roman Suzi wrote:
I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is
dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for
lambdas _with_ arguments, we could develop PEP 312 further.
Some suggestions from recent lambda threads (I only considered the ones
Roman Suzi wrote:
I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is
dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for
lambdas _with_ arguments, we could develop PEP 312 further.
Well, my vote is still with Ruby-style codeblock syntax, but as a
compro
Hi all,
BTW, Alex Martelli and me have created a PEP 312 some time ago (when the
debate of inline if was hot).
I wish lambdas will not be deprecated in Python but the key to that is
dropping the keyword (lambda). If anybody could think of a better syntax for
lambdas _with_ arguments, we could de
Steven Bethard wrote:
> * Rewritable with existing functions
> Mainly these are examples of code that can benefit from using the
> functions available in the operator module, especially
> operator.itemgetter and operator.attrgetter (available in 2.4)
> ...
> * Rewritable with list comprehensions/g
17 matches
Mail list logo
