In article <89EC7888-E580-11D8-8D12-000A95A50FB2 at fuhm.net>, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote: > As a postscript, I must say I am alarmed by some comments others have > used to justify the current restricted state. In particular > (paraphrased), "it's good because it keeps people from using lambda", > and "it's good because it keeps people from doing '@1+1' by mistake. > For the first: you hate lambdas so much? I think I was the one who posted the lambda comment. I also posted in a different message a use-case for decorators that had a line with two lambdas in it, so obviously I don't hate lambdas. I'm actually pretty neutral on restricted decorators vs @expression. But @lambda(func): body def func(...): ... is (I think) much more likely to be an abuse of language than the Pythonic way of writing something, so I don't see a lot of harm in preventing it. -- David Eppstein Computer Science Dept., Univ. of California, Irvine http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4