[Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Feb 8 19:16:16 CET 2006
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Wed Feb 8 19:16:16 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 10:07 AM 2/8/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: >On 2/8/06, Patrick Collison <patrick at collison.ie> wrote: > > And to think that people thought that keeping "lambda", but changing > > the name, would avoid all the heated discussion... :-) > >Note that I'm not participating in any attempts to "improve" lambda. > >Just about the only improvement I'd like to see is to add parentheses >around the arguments, so you'd write lambda(x, y): x**y instead of >lambda x, y: x**y. lambda(x,y) looks like a function call until you hit the ':'; we don't usually have keywords that work that way. How about (lambda x,y: x**y)? It seems like all the recently added constructs (conditionals, yield expressions, generator expressions) take on this rather lisp-y look. :) Or, if you wanted to eliminate the "lambda" keyword, then "(from x,y return x**y)" could be a "function expression", and it looks even more like most of the recently-added expression constructs. Well, actually, I guess to mirror the style of conditionals and genexps more closely, it would have to be something like "(return x**y from x,y)" or "(x**y from x,y)". Ugh. Never mind, let's just leave it the way it is today. :)
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list