A critic of Guido's blog on Python's lambda

[Alex Martelli]

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

> aleax at mac.com (Alex Martelli) writes:
> > I think it's reasonable to make a name a part of functions, classes and
> > modules because they may often be involved in tracebacks (in case of
> > uncaught errors): to me, it makes sense to let an error-diagnosing
> > tracebacks display packages, modules, classes and functions/methods
> > involved in the chain of calls leading to the point of error _by name_.
> 
> But it would be even nicer if the traceback could point back to the
> exact location in the source code where the function definition
> occurred, and that wouldn't need any name for the function.

I believe a name is a useful "summary" or "conceptual handle" for a
thing, saving us from having to describe/analyze/recognize it in more
detail each and every time.  "Need" may be too strong a word, but I
maintain there's _usefulness_ (and reasonableness, and good common
sense) in the naming.


Alex