Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

[Steve Holden]

Aahz wrote:
> In article <mailman.1192.1112376393.1799.python-list at python.org>,
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard  <pinard at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> 
>>[Sunnan]
>>
>>>[...] for Pythons ideal of having one canonical, explicit way to
>>>program.
>>
>>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?  Yes,
> there's certainly redundancy in Python right now, but a large portion of
> that will go away in Python 3.0.  So where's the abandonment of the
> ideal?

Mind providing evidence rather than citing your opinions? I don't see 
any evidence that Python 3.0 will adopt Turing-machine-like canonical 
algorithms, and anything more complex is (at least from a theoretical 
point of view) merely syntactic sugar.

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden        +1 703 861 4237  +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC             http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming  http://pydish.holdenweb.com/