Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Alexey Muranov]

On dim., Mar 31, 2019 at 6:00 PM, python-list-request at python.org wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:32 AM Alexey Muranov 
> <alexey.muranov at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>  On ven., Mar 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM, python-list-request at python.org 
>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > There could perhaps be a special case for lambda expressions such
>>  >  that,
>>  > when they are directly assigned to a variable, Python would use 
>> the
>>  > variable name as the function name. I expect this could be
>>  >  accomplished by
>>  > a straightforward transformation of the AST, perhaps even by just
>>  >  replacing
>>  > the assignment with a def statement.
>> 
>>  If this will happen, that is, if in Python assigning a 
>> lambda-defined
>>  function to a variable will mutate the function's attributes, or 
>> else,
>>  if is some "random" syntactically-determined cases
>> 
>>      f = ...
>> 
>>  will stop being the same as evaluating the right-hand side and
>>  assigning the result to "f" variable, it will be a fairly good extra
>>  reason for me to go away from Python.
>> 
> 
> Is there a particular reason you don't like this? It's not too 
> different
> from the syntactic magic Python already employs to support the 
> 0-argument
> form of super().

I do not want any magic in a programming language i use, especially if 
it breaks simple rules.

I do not like 0-argument `super()` either, but at least I do not have 
to use it. I am suspicious of `__class__` too. But here only 
identifiers are hacked, not the assignment operator. (I suppose the 
hack can be unhacked by using your own meta-class with a custom 
`__prepare__`.)

Neither i like how a function magically turns into a generator if the 
keyword `yield` appears somewhere within its definition.

Those are the things i don't like the most in Python.

Alexey.