Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

[Aahz]

In article <mailman.1489.1112889853.1799.python-list at python.org>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard  <pinard at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>[Aahz]
>>
>> I'll agree that Python currently has many examples of more than one
>> way to do things (and even Python 3.0 won't remove every example
>> [...]). But I won't agree that Only One Way has been abandoned as a
>> design principle.
>
>To summarize, instead of saying "Python has only one way to do it",
>rather say "Python will eventually have only one way to do it", and with
>such a wording, nobody will not be mislead.

Let's go back to the original comments, shall we?

    > [...] 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.

Your claim that the ideal has been abandoned is just plain wrong.  In
addition, nobody has ever said "Python has only one way to do it".  The
actual principle from ``import this`` is

    There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

Some people have advocated that Python's motto should be "There's Only
One Way" as a counterpoint to Perl's TMTOWTDI -- but that's different
from the design principle.  Which I repeat has not been abandoned, but
should be understood to exist alongside eighteen other design principles
for Python.
-- 
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