Steven Bethard wrote:
If you're really afraid of two lines, write it as:
def r(): randint(1, 100)
This is definitely a bad case for an anonymous function because it's not
anonymous! You give it a name, r.
This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
form to assign an
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
form to assign an anonymous function (an object) to a
name?
Because it obfuscates your code for no benefit. You should avoid making it
hard for others to read your code (and 'others' includes yourself in the
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:36:24 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
form to assign an anonymous function (an object) to a
name?
Because it obfuscates your code for no benefit. You should avoid making it
hard for others
On 7 Jul 2005 15:46:23 GMT, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Put it this way: whenever I see a two-line def as above, I can't help
feeling that it is a waste of a def. (Somebody went to all the trouble
to define a function for *that*?) Yet I would never think the
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:36:24 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
form to assign an anonymous function (an object) to a
name?
Because it obfuscates your code for no benefit. You should avoid making
Am I just weird?
I feel the same way about where to use lambda's and where *not*
I come from C and C++ background and defining a function at the top
level (no nested functions) would always require good reasons
function name has to be remembered, to put it in other words it has to
be added in
