On ven., Mar 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:30 PM Alexey Muranov
<alexey.mura...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On jeu., mars 28, 2019 at 8:57 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu>
wrote:
> Throwing the name away is foolish. Testing functions is another
> situation in which function names are needed for proper report.
My idea however was to have it as an exact synonyme of an
assignment of
a lambda. Assignment is an assignment, it should not modify the
attributs of the value that is being assigned.
There could perhaps be a special case for lambda expressions such
that,
when they are directly assigned to a variable, Python would use the
variable name as the function name. I expect this could be
accomplished by
a straightforward transformation of the AST, perhaps even by just
replacing
the assignment with a def statement.
If this will happen, that is, if in Python assigning a lambda-defined
function to a variable will mutate the function's attributes, or else,
if is some "random" syntactically-determined cases
f = ...
will stop being the same as evaluating the right-hand side and
assigning the result to "f" variable, it will be a fairly good extra
reason for me to go away from Python.
Since this could just as easily be applied to lambda though, I'm
afraid it
doesn't offer much of a case for the "f(x)" syntactic sugar.
I did not get this. My initial idea was exactly about introducing a
syntactic sugar for better readability. I've already understood that
the use cases contradict PEP 8 recommendations.
Alexey.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
