RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jun 22 07:16:34 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-June/054404.html

Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > But as long as we are describing the
> > present state we should call a spade a spade, etc.
> 
> I guess I take a syntactic view of the status quo, because, while 
> lambdas may be implemented as anonymous functions, the current syntax 
> doesn't let me *write* an arbitrary function as a lambda.

You can write anything as a lambda, but it may not be easy.

> Regardless, I believe the balance will eventually tip in some 
> direction - either lambdas disappear entirely, become able support 
> full anonymous functions, or else the idea of a 'deferred expression' 
> becomes a defining characteristic, rather than a syntactic quirk.

I would put my money on the latter rather than the former.  The moment
functions start moving beyond a line or so is when they usually start
begging for a name.

 - Josiah

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-June/054404.html below:

[Python-Dev] Recommend accepting PEP 312 -- Simple Implicit Lambda