On Fri, 2 May 2008 19:03:55 -0400 "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some people write > somename = lambda args: expression > instead of the more obvious (to most people) and, dare I say, standard > def somename(args): return expression [...] > There are currently uses of named lambdas at least in urllib2. This to me > is a bad example for new Python programmers. > > What do our style mavens think? Speaking as one of those "some people", my position is that functions created with lambda are first-class objects the same as everything else in Python, and a rule that says "You must not assign a lambda to a name, ever" would be a terrible rule. (And I don't do it to save three characters. I don't do it often, and I can't exactly articulate why I do it, only that I do it when it feels right. It's a style thing.) However, I'm happy for "no named lambdas" to be a guideline or recommendation. I'm even happy for a stronger prohibition to apply to the standard library. I don't dislike named lambdas, but I don't expect others to like them. -- Steven D'Aprano _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
