[Python-ideas] a new lambda syntax
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Tue Oct 20 07:37:15 CEST 2009
More information about the Python-ideas mailing list
Tue Oct 20 07:37:15 CEST 2009
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] a new lambda syntax
- Next message: [Python-ideas] a new lambda syntax
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Coghlan writes: > For myself, I don't actually agree it's a valid design rule - I think > anonymous blocks have legitimate use cases (see Ars Technica's writeup > of the Apple's new Grand Central Dispatch and C-level anonymous block > system in OS X 10.6). That doesn't look like what "anonymous block" means to me. It looks like a lambda. The difference is that an block resolves all its non-argument references in the calling context, eg, as a C macro without arguments would. But I don't see how you can assign a C macro to a variable and call it at runtime.... Now, the cases that Ruby programmers I know always propose to me as use cases for anonymous blocks rely on conventions for naming certain objects used by their blocks (typically iteration variables), thus avoiding the need to specify arguments for them. So a block seems to be a conventional way of currying a more general function to the context of a specific suite.
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] a new lambda syntax
- Next message: [Python-ideas] a new lambda syntax
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-ideas mailing list