what's wrong with "lambda x : print x/60,x%60"

[Devan L]

Steve Holden wrote:
> rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
> > "Gary Herron" <gherron at islandtraining.com> wrote in message
> > news:mailman.1600.1133766805.18701.python-list at python.org...
> >
> >>--snip--
> >>So just use a def.  It is constantly pointed out on
> >>this list that the lambda provides no extra expressive power, it is
> >>merely a shortcut
> >
> >
> > No, it is not merely a shortcut.  It often allows one to avoid
> > polluting
> > the namespace with a completely superfluous function name, thus
> > reducing code smell.  It can also avoid a multi-line function defintion
> > which often pushes other relevant code off the current page and
> > out of view, and thus lambda can increase program readability.
> >
> I'm getting a little tired of "namespace pollution" being trotted out as
> a reason to use lambda. Defining a function, and giving it a name, isn't
> "polluting the namespace", any more than assigning sub-expressions to
> temporary variables is polluting the namespace. Why use temporary
> variables when all you have to do is make your expressions three lines
> long to avoid "polluting the namespace"?

I agree, if I were to name my function `shuffle', then I wouldn't be
able to name any of my intermediate functions `shuffle'! Oh the
humanity! Therefore I will instead use adhere to my 0 namespace
pollution policy and use this instead:
__nopollution_at__all_portion = range(50)
__nopollution_at__all_word = 'mint white chocolate chip'
if __name__ == '__main__':
    print (lambda portion,word:(lambda x,word:[x.pop() for i in
range(len(word))]+x)((lambda x,word:[x.pop() for i in
range(len(word))]+x)((lambda x,word:[x.pop() for i in
range(len(word))]+x)((lambda x,word:[x.pop() for i in
range(len(word))]+x)(portion[:],word),word),word),word))(__nopollution_at__all_portion,__nopollution_at__all_word)

;-)