Python or Java or maybe PHP?

[Xavier Morel]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> Xavier Morel <xavier.morel at masklinn.net> wrote:
>    ...
>> Wouldn't it be possible to change the `def` statement to return a 
>> reference to the function, and allow omitting the function name thereby
>> bypassing the default binding (current behavior)?
> 
> It's _possible_ (doesn't  introduce syntax ambiguities) though it does
> introduce incompatible interactive-interpreter behavior, as you say:
> 
>>  >>> # Extended behavior
>>  >>> # returns a reference to the function
>>  >>> def foo(*args, **kwargs):
>>               pass
>> <function at 0x00FA37B0>
> 
> This could be avoided if 'def <name><etc>' remained a statement like
> today, and a separate expression 'def<etc>' returned a function object
> as a result; this would have the aded plus of avoiding the totally new
> (to Python) idea of "statement returning a value" (_expressions_ return
> a value).
> 
True that, I didn't even consider the possibility to create an 
independent expression.

And it completely remove the possibility to generate the first "con".

>>      * May allow for blocks-like constructs (I'm not sure of the current
>> state of the closures over Python functions though, these may have to be
>> extended to "full" closures if they aren't) and be considered by some as
> 
> Python's closures are 'full', but don't allow inner functions to rebind
> names in the namespace of outer functions.
> 
> I'm not sure a PEP like this has ever been proposed, but the idea of
> anonymous def is not new (bar some details of your proposal): if a PEP
> doesn't exist, you could write one, at least to firm up all details.
> 
> 
> Alex
Or maybe start by creating a thread on the subject of an anonymous def 
expression on this list first?