Fear and suspicion of lambdas, was Re: Meta decorator with parameters, defined in explicit functions

[Ben Finney]

dieter <dieter at handshake.de> writes:

> Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > ... Rather, the motivation was that a complex thing, with many
> > moving parts, has an unexplained implementation: a nested set of
> > functions without names to explain their part in the pattern.
>
> In a previous reply, I have tried to explain (apparently without
> success) that the "thing" is not "complex" at all

Your explanation was clear. I disagree with it; the code is not at all
obvious in its intention or operation.

Naming the parts descriptively, and writing a brief synopsis docstring
for each function, is a way to address that. Which is my motivation for
this thread.

> but a simple signature transform for a decorator definitition

You're making my case for me: To anyone who doesn't already know exactly
what's going on, that is not at all obvious from the code as presented
in the first message.

> and that the nested function implementation is natural for this
> purpose.

The nested function implementation is not the problem, as I hope I've
made clear elsewhere in this thread.

-- 
 \         “People's Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: Stop the Laurasian |
  `\              Separatist Movement!” —wiredog, http://kuro5hin.org/ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney