[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: >> Any time you want an anonymous function (or class, or type, or number) >> it would be because that thing is sufficiently small and simple that the >> best name for it is the code itself.
> In the real world, people don't choose anonymous functions only in > these alleged cases where anonymous is best In the real world, people do a lot of things they shouldn't. Any feature can be abused, and poor style is possible in any language. I just checked my code for lambdas, and they are exclusively short half-liners passed as parameters to higher order functions. Naming them would only complicate the code, just like naming (other) intermediate results would. > if anonymous functions are available, they're used in even more > cases where naming would help Perhps, but not necessarily. But how about the converse: if every function must be named, they will be named even where naming them hurts. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
