For me, one of the reasons for using Python is the ease and the intuivity of reading its code.
I guess this is true for many of us. Now 'ease and intuitivity' stronly depends on one's background...
I have a problem with intuitively getting what is going on when using a pattern like (x,y,z=0) -> (x,y,z) where I expect at the first glance some C code with access to class members.
<pedantic> There are nothing like a class or a class member in C. </pedantic>
At least I must start looking at the code more closely thinking why is someone using such a construct.
Already lambda x,y,z=0:(x,y,z) is a problem for me.
Not for me. It's clearly a function that takes 2 mandatory and one optional argument (which default to 0), and returns a tuple of it's argument.
it's named equivalent is: def make_three_tuple(x, y, z=0): return (x, y, z)
Why not: try: (x,y,z) except NameError: z=0 (x,y,z) ?
Because it does not do the same thing ?-)
Because, if it did, it would still require 5 times more lines of code to do the same thing (hence it's more error-prone by a factor a 5) ?
Because it uses an exception, which is far less efficient than using a default argument ?
Because the name error could be on x and/or y too, and the try:except clause would hide it ?
I stop here, but I think I could think of more good (IMHO) reason to prefer the lambda form.
Watching the last piece of code can even directly be seen, that there is eventually a NameError problem with z to handle,
No. AFAICT, the name error could be with x and/or y and/or z.
so where is the gain of using lambda or the mapping?
See upper...
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])"
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
