[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Michael Vanier wrote:
> OTOH this is no problem for scheme or ruby. Not that this is earth-shaking
> anyway, but I think it's a good argument against indentation-based syntax
> (which I like most of the time).
Except that the difficulties with python's lambda syntax are
deliberate. The stated intent is that any lambda that is
sufficiently complex to cause problems should be promoted to
a named function in the same scope.
def Eq(x, y):
if x == y:
Note that as you cannot use statements in a python lambda expression,
there are a number of cases where this approach is not just a cultural
preference, but mandated.
 A decision perpeptually debated on various python lists between
those who consider it a 'blow in the cause of software maintainability',
and those who consider it an unreasonable imposition on programmers
ability to choose 'the right tool for the job'.
Andrae Muys But can it generate *quantum* Haiku
<firstname.lastname@example.org> error messages, in Latin, where each
Engineer line of the error message is a
Braintree Communications palindrome? -- Mike Vanier on perl