«

Bengt Richter wrote:
> It is a little sneaky though, so it might not be prudent to promote
> without a little more experimentation? I just like to explore

I don't think even the py-dev discussions of this settled on whether such tricks
were "very cool" or "downright evil".

They're probably less evil than sys._getframe hacks, though

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net

Op 2004-12-17, Terry Reedy schreef <>:
>
> "Jason Zheng" <> wrote in message
> news:cpvhee$7uh$...
>> Steven Bethard wrote:
>>> Jason Zheng wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm wondering why python still has limited lambda support. What's
>>>> stopping the developers of python to support more lisp-like lambda
>>>> function?
>
> They already have: given the fundamental syntax difference between all
> expressions and expressions within statements, def statements are at least
> the equivalent of lisp lambdas + name binding. When you get an exception
> traceback, a unique name is more helpful than the pseudoname <lambda>.
> Isolating the definition of a function in a separate statement also makes
> it possible to unittest the function.
>
>>> This comes up every few weeks on the list. If you haven't already,
>>> check the archives in Google for 'anonymous def' or 'anonymous
>>> function'. The usual response to this question is something along the
>>> lines of "if it's good enough to create a function for, it's good enough
>>> to name".
>
> What puzzles me is 1) why some people apparently think anonymity is good --
> is it really that hard to name non-trivial functions?

Do you name every object, number, string ... before you use it.
If not it seems you don't object to anonymity.

And yes it sometimes is hard. Of course you can just name it f1, f2 etc,
but that is no improvement over anonymity and sometimes the best you
can do is describe what the function does, but the code does that
better.

--
Antoon Pardon