On Aug 3, 2004, at 4:22 PM, David Eppstein wrote: > 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. Ah, I'm sorry then. I have noticed many people seem to be quite biased against lambdas here, so I just assumed. > 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. Oh, I agree, it's quite silly to write a piece of code like that, and if anyone wrote it in code I have to maintain I'd probably be quite irritated. So, if the conclusion to this is "well, we can always unrestrict it later, if someone comes up with a convincing use-case", then it'll likely never be changed, because I doubt that's gonna happen. The best I can do is foo().bar(), which I suspect at least one person will run into at some point and wonder about, then work around instead of presenting it to python-dev. My main argument is and has been simply: that's how everything else in python works, so this should be the same. Last message on this subject, I think everyone got the point by now and is either convinced or not. :) James
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