Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

[Aahz]

In article <mailman.1222.1112417820.1799.python-list at python.org>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard  <pinard at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>[Aahz]
>> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard  <pinard at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>No doubt it once was true, but I guess this ideal has been
>>>abandoned a few years ago.  My honest feeling is that it would be a
>>>mis-representation of Python, assertng today that this is still one
>>>of the Python's ideals.
>>
>> Mind providing evidence rather than simply citing your feelings?
>
>The important word was "honest", not "feeling". :-)

Fair enough.

>> Yes, there's certainly redundancy in Python right now, but a large
>> portion of that will go away in Python 3.0.
>
>And when will that be?  The principle of "there is only way to do it"
>was observable in Python 1.5.2, and started to disappear at that time.
>How many years between 1.5.2 and 3.0?
>
>> So where's the abandonment of the ideal?
>
>Many of us are using Python today, week after week, year long.  So
>let's be pragmatic.  Python is what it became and now is.  Let's not
>define it as a memory from the past nor as a futuristic dream.

You're free to continue using 1.5.2.  Why don't you?  Because you want
shiny new features only available in current releases.  To maintain true
"only one way", existing features would need to be removed -- but that
would break backward compatibility.  Given the tension of the various
requirements, I think that Python has broken "only one way" as little as
possible, with the full intention of getting closer to its ideal when the
time comes to break backward compatibility.

You just can't have your cake and eat it, too.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise, readable
classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of clear code -- 
not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to death."  --GvR