Why functional Python matters
Paul Prescod
paul at prescod.net
Thu Apr 17 20:08:16 EDT 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Thu Apr 17 20:08:16 EDT 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Why functional Python matters
- Next message (by thread): Why functional Python matters
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Henrik Motakef wrote: > ... > > There are really ideas to remove the functional stuff from Python? I > wonder why people frequently think that making things impossible will > improve programming languages. > > just-because-it's-flexible-doesn't-mean-it's-perl-ly y'rs There is nobody suggesting to make anything impossible. The question is whether to have two or three syntactic variations for more or less the same thing. Lambda is syntactic sugar for def. You literally can't accomplish anything (useful) with it that you couldn't with def. map is very near to syntactic sugar for list comprehensions (or vice versa). apply is syntactic sugar for "*", "**", and so forth. If Python adds new stuff (like "*", and list comprehensions) and never removes anything then there will come a day when it is full of redundant features. I don't really feel strongly enough to argue about lambda et. al. but I want to make the point that there are two sides to this argument. Paul Prescod
- Previous message (by thread): Why functional Python matters
- Next message (by thread): Why functional Python matters
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list