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

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2006-05-09, Pisin Bootvong schreef <joesb.coe9 at gmail.com>:
>
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2006-05-09, Pisin Bootvong schreef <joesb.coe9 at gmail.com>:
>> > Is this a Slippery Slope fallacious argument?
>> > (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SlipperySlope)
>>
>> No it is not.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So the question I have is: Why is requiring me to give this function
>> a name considered a good thing, when it leads to a situation that
>> is considered bad practice in case of a number.
>>
>> --
>
> Slippery Slope::
>        "Argumentation that A is bad, because A might lead to B, and B
> to C, and we all know C is very bad."

But I have seen noone here argue that requiring functions to be named
leads to requiring all variables to be named. 

>> Why is requiring me to give this function
>> a name considered a good thing, when it leads to a situation that
>> is considered bad practice in case of a number.
>
> A === "requiring me to give function a name"
> no B
> C === "requiring me to give number a name"
>
> "Argumentation that requiring one to give function a name is bad,
> because that might lead to requiring one to give number a name, and we
> all know that that is very bad."

That is not the arguement I'm making.

The argument is that a particular pratice is considered bad coding,
(with an example giving a number) and then showing that requiring
a name for a function, almost makes such a practice inevitable (for
certain functions used as parameters)

-- 
Antoon Pardon