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

[Pisin Bootvong]

Joe Marshall wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
> Most languages allow `unnamed numbers'.  The `VAT_MULTIPLIER' argument
> is a
> strawman.  Would you want to have to use a special syntax to name the
> increment
> in loop?
>
>  defnumber zero 0
>  defnumber one { successor (zero); }
>
>  for (int i = zero; i < limit; i += one) { ...}
>
> If you language allows unnamed integers, unnamed strings, unnamed
> characters, unnamed arrays or aggregates, unnamed floats, unnamed
> expressions, unnamed statements, unnamed argument lists, etc.  why
> *require* a name for trivial functions?
> Wouldn't all the other constructs benefit by having a required name as
> well?
>

Is this a Slippery Slope fallacious argument?
(http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SlipperySlope)

"if python required you to name every function then soon it will
require you to name every number, every string, every immediate result,
etc. And we know that is bad. Therefore requiring you to name your
function is bad!!!! So Python is bad!!!!"


How about:

If Common Lisp lets you use unnamed function, then soon everyone will
start not naming their function. Then soon they will start not naming
their variable, not naming their magic number, not naming any of their
class, not naming any function, and then all Common Lisp program will
become one big mess. And we know that is bad. So allowing unnamed
function is bad!!!! So Common Lisp is bad!!!!!