Python-list Digest, Vol 186, Issue 31
On ven., Mar 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM, python-list-request at python.org wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:30 PM Alexey Muranov
> <alexey.muranov at gmail.com>
>> On jeu., mars 28, 2019 at 8:57 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu>
>> > 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
> 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
> 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.