> -----Original Message-----
> From: Python-ideas <python-ideas-bounces+tritium-
> list=sdamon....@python.org> On Behalf Of Abe Dillon
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 12:56 AM
> To: Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Python-Ideas <python-ideas@python.org>
> Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Syntactic sugar to declare partial functions
>
> [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.
I never said or implied that you lost your mind. Only that you were wrong. It
is possible to be wrong and sane. However if you really insist that the two
are one in the same... you might actually need to seek out professional help.
>
> [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
> <mailto:ros...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Abe Dillon <abedil...@gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> <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 <mailto:Python-ideas@python.org>
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas>
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
> <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/
