On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:19 PM Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> Okay, here’s my dilemma. It looks like this thread wants to devise a new > syntax for lambda, using e.g. (x, y) -> x+y, or the same with =>. That’s > great, but doesn’t open new vistas. OTOH, for people using type > annotations, a much more pressing issue is an alternative for > typing.Callable that is more readable, and supports extra features that > Callable doesn’t, like keyword args, varargs, and pos-only. > FWIW, I *do not* want an alternate spelling for lambda. If your time machine were still working, and you could go back to 1991 to change the spelling, yes I might like that. For that matter, if someone had a good spelling for multi-line lambdas, I might like that. Or *maybe* some other difference in behavior, but nothing comes immediately to mind. But allowing a few cryptic punctuation symbols to express an anonymous function while still retaining "the name of a cryptic greek letter" to do exactly the same thing seems like a strong non-goal. That said, if I had to look at one, I'd like '->' much better than '=>'.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/6MWEHXH6RSEDPMHIVGBHQ7O2K3IQ25L2/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
