[Alex Walters] > He is questioning the concept that the lambda keyword has caused any > harm. You assert that it caused minor harm. Minor harm can still be real, > significant, and non-trivial.
What, exactly, is the difference between "minor" and "non-trivial" and when did I say the harm was "significant and non-trivial"? [Alex Walters] > You will find no evidence to support your argument. > You could read what I wrote to Neil Girdhar who was able to engage with me without implying that I've lost my mind. [Chris Angelico] > If your reaction was extreme, saying so isn't attacking you. Is this a hypothetical now? I said "*I think* they would (or do in the case of 'lambda') harm Python." I wasn't aware the word "harm" was something only deranged maniacs use. [Chris Angelico] > Explain, please, what the HARM is that comes from the use of the word > "lambda". I HAVE. [Chris Angelico] > Also, the signature is most decidedly NOT obvious from context Who decided this? It's been decided by some committee? When you write a key function, you don't know how many arguments are going to be passed? [Chris Angelico] > nor is it insignificant. I never said it was. I just said that the logic is more important from the standpoint of the reader. [Chris Angelico] > Putting it first gives context to the body of the > function. Python made the correct choice here. I disagree. This forum is looking more and more toxic. I've explained myself over and over again. I just wanted to +1 Steven's original comment. This is ridiculous. I guess I've pissed of the good-old-boys by calling out Steven's unnecessary condescension. Great. It looks like Python is in fantastic hands. On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Abe Dillon <abedil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [Steven D'Aprano] > >> > >> Just because I challenge your statements doesn't mean I'm attacking you. > > > > > > No. Telling me I'm having an extreme overreaction means you're attacking > me. > > If your reaction was extreme, saying so isn't attacking you. > > > [Steven D'Aprano] > >> > >> You've said that the choice of keyword, "lambda", has caused harm. Given > >> the chance to clarify what you meant, you stood by your comment that the > >> choice of keyword "lambda" has done real, significant, non-trivial harm > >> to Python (the language, or the community). > > > > > > What are you talking about? I explained exactly what I meant: > > > >> I think there are better ways that anonymous functions could have been > >> implemented. I've already said in past discussions, I think the > expression > >> should come before the signature because the signature is often obvious > from > >> context so placing it before the logic is kinda noisy. I don't know > what the > >> best syntax would have been, but I refuse to believe that an esoteric > word > >> from an esoteric branch of calculus with an arbitrary etymology was the > >> absolute best choice available. I think the harm that choice caused is > >> relatively minor, but I don't think it was a great choice. > > > > > > Notice: I never said "real, significant, non-trivial harm" anywhere in > this > > entire discussion. I never said anything close to that. Stop jamming > > bullshit in my mouth to suit your narrative that I'm "extremely > > overreacting". It's not cute. > > Explain, please, what the HARM is that comes from the use of the word > "lambda". In contrast, using the word "function" does definitely have > harm, because you can no longer use the name "function" as a variable > or parameter. > > Also, the signature is most decidedly NOT obvious from context, nor is > it insignificant. Putting it first gives context to the body of the > function. Python made the correct choice here. > > > [Steven D'Aprano] > >> > >> But we ought to "check our privilege", as they say. I think that if we > >> as a community automatically reject any word because it isn't "plain > >> English", that would be a sign of unexamined privilege and quite rude to > >> boot. > > > > > > Rude? Who would it be rude to if we had chosen "anonfunc" instead of > > "lambda"? > > No, but it's no less jargonny. > > > Very few of us are computer scientists by profession. That's not even > where > > 'lambda' comes from. In computer science, it's called an "anonymous > > function". "lambda" comes from lambda calculus. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_function > > "In computer programming, an anonymous function (function literal, > lambda abstraction, or lambda expression) is a function definition > that is not bound to an identifier." > > So... I would say "lambda" is very firmly connected with anonymous > functions. > > ChrisA > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/