Steven Bethard wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> After so many attempts to come up with an alternative for lambda, >> perhaps we should admit defeat. I've not had the time to follow the most >> recent rounds, but I propose that we keep lambda, so as to stop wasting >> everybody's talent and time on an impossible quest. +1 for keeping the functionality, especially given list and generator expressions being "compound lambda expressions" in a sense. Removing anonymous functions would break a nice symmetry there. > .. _alternatives: http://wiki.python.org/moin/AlternateLambdaSyntax Of those, I like the "for" syntax without parens around the arguments best: (x*y + z for x, y, z). Parentheses around the whole expression should be optional in the same cases that allow for omitting parentheses around generator expressions. It fits perfectly with the way generator expression syntax relates to generator function definitions, and re-using the "for" keyword keeps the zoo of reserved words small. Just my 2 cents and all that... -- Thomas
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