On Mar 23, 4:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Also, despite reassurances to the contrary, I still get the impression
> >that there is a strong anti-lambda sentiment among the Python "in"
> >crowd. Is it just a question of the word "lambda," as opposed to
> >perceived cleaner syntax?
>
> The problem with lambda is that too often it results in clutter (this is
> a strictly made-up example off the top of my head for illustrative
> purposes rather than any real code, but I've seen plenty of code similar
> at various times):
>
> gui.create_window(origin=(123,456), background=gui.WHITE,
> foreground=gui.BLACK, callback=lambda x: x*2)
>
> That means I need to pause reading the create_window() arguments while I
> figure out what the lambda means -- and often the lambda is more
> complicated than that. Moreover, because the lambda is unnamed, it's
> missing a reading cue for its purpose.
I find lambdas invaluable very frequently - often to avoid the reading
clutter.
* Transforming function calls
something.Event += lambda sender, event: real_handler()
* Properties
name = property(lambda self: self.__name, __set_name)
* Very short functions where extra lines reduce readability
if direction == 'left':
transform = lambda x, y: -x
else:
transform = lambda x, y: x
* Functions that take functions as arguments
old_list = [(3,1), (2, 2), (1, 3)]
new_list = sorted(old_list, key=lambda x: x[1])
new_data = process(data_Set, lambda x: x+1)
new_data2 = process(data_Set, lambda x: x-1)
I don't think any of these are unreadable or improved by defining a
'real' function.
Michael
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com
> --
> Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
>
> "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code."
> --Bill Harlan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
