Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #76723
| References | <1bd05b41-ad00-4ce8-8678-de51205ebc3b@googlegroups.com> <mailman.13240.1408609103.18130.python-list@python.org> <93e3fb85-9e3b-4d3d-bed3-312172d55a4f@googlegroups.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-21 19:05 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) |
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.13244.1408611928.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:59 PM, <icefapper@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks, bu what exactly do you find unlikeable in this syntax? the ")" is no new syntax, but simply a match for a previous "("; and you can put it anywhere because the "(" contents are space-insensitive:
>
> this would be a syntax error:
> a = def():
> print("gvr")
>
> this too:
> a = def():
> print("anon")
>
> but not this:
> a = (def():
> print("no")
> )
>
> neither this:
> a = (def():
> print("d"))
>
> nor this:
> a = (def():
> print( "no" )
>
>
> )
>
> yours truly would be glad to know your thoughts on this
I think it's less readable if the close parens goes on the previous
line. However, that's a question of style, more than syntax. I just
think it'd look better with a clear unindent at the end of a block of
statements which all stand alone.
But that was a small side point. What matters is: How is this new
syntax better than out-of-line function definition?
ChrisA
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) icefapper@gmail.com - 2014-08-21 00:55 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-08-21 18:18 +1000
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) icefapper@gmail.com - 2014-08-21 01:59 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-08-21 19:05 +1000
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) icefapper@gmail.com - 2014-08-21 02:06 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) icefapper@gmail.com - 2014-08-21 02:27 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) icefapper@gmail.com - 2014-08-21 02:14 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-08-21 12:27 +0300
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) icefapper@gmail.com - 2014-08-21 02:30 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2014-08-22 15:15 +1000
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-08-21 06:07 -0400
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Travis Griggs <travisgriggs@gmail.com> - 2014-08-22 13:05 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-08-23 19:20 +1000
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2014-08-22 16:48 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2014-08-22 16:58 -0700
Re: proposed syntax for multiline anony-functions (hopefully?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-08-23 10:37 +0300
csiph-web