map/filter/reduce/lambda opinions and background unscientificmini-survey
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Tue Jul 5 21:58:58 EDT 2005
"Steven Bethard" <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-8ydnZxXGOCQvlbfRVn-3Q at comcast.com...
> OTOH, I fully agree with Peter Hansen: "Really, the name is such a
> trivial, unimportant part of this whole thing that it's hardly worth
> discussing."
>From a certain viewpoint, I would agree. Yet, the word 'lambda' *is* the
center of most of the fuss. For beginners, it is a minor issue: learn it
and move on. But for some functionalists, it is a major issue. They
'know' that lambda means 'expressionized anonymous function'. And in
lambda calculus, it is the main actor. But in Python, lambda only means
anonymous trivial function. It is only an expressionized convenience
abbreviation for an important but small subset of possible functions. So
for years, such knowledgeable people have called for and proposed various
syntaxes for 'proper lambdas' or 'true lambdas', saying pretty clearly that
what Python has is improper or false. Would there have been so much fuss
if the keyword had been 'fun' and the word 'lambda' had never appeared in
the Python docs? I strongly doubt it.
I also suspect that the years of fuss over Python's lambda being what it is
rather that what it is 'supposed' to be (and is in other languages) but is
not, has encourage Guido to consider just getting rid of it. I personally
might prefer keeping the feature but using a different keyword.
Terry J. Reedy
More information about the Python-list
mailing list