Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87bnwv2a5v.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net>
References: <9daf0806-02de-4447-964c-c8f8953c23e5@googlegroups.com> <10101874-2995-4acd-9851-989603f052e3@googlegroups.com> <bd158c7b-5511-472c-bce3-cc7b6b7747f6@googlegroups.com> <e2b2b9d5-56bd-4455-b8c3-205000d9acb3@googlegroups.com> <mailman.8369.1395437459.18130.python-list@python.org> <a0403642-c384-4623-bbfd-77c48285ec96@googlegroups.com> <mailman.8377.1395456097.18130.python-list@python.org> <dcd72881-7ee2-4bc3-90ab-7912b4bea05b@googlegroups.com> <lgj4sp$7ed$1@speranza.aioe.org> <532d5bd9$0$29994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <lgoh7j$otg$1@speranza.aioe.org> <mailman.8440.1395651801.18130.python-list@python.org> <87bnwv2a5v.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 22:49:38 +1100
Subject: Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list)
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Cc: "python-list@python.org" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.8446.1395661782.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 48
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:68872

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:
>
>> If lambda were going to be deprecated and removed then it already
>> would have happened in Python 3, because Guido tried to do precisely
>> that. I'm not sure what the reasons were for keeping it in the end
>> (according to PEP 3099 it was because nobody suggested a suitable
>> replacement), but if he couldn't get rid of it then, he never will.
>
> You never *need* (Python's) lambda for anything. Inner functions are
> more capable and almost always more readable. It doesn't hurt to have
> lambda, but I don't find any use for it, either.

They're often not more readable. A lot of people seem to equate
"verbose" with "readable", possibly by faulty extrapolation from
unreadably crunched code with one-letter variables and no line breaks.
But which of these is truly more readable?

squares = []
for n in range(30):
    squares.append(n * n)

squares = [n * n for n in range(30)]

Similarly, there are plenty of cases where a nameless function is MUCH
clearer than breaking it out into a separate def and then using the
name once. Do you name the function for what it does internally?

def get_oneth_element_index(item):
    return item[1].index
L.sort(key=get_oneth_element_index)

Or for how you're using it?

def keyfunc(item):
    return item[1].index
L.sort(key=keyfunc)

Or do you just shortcut the whole thing by inlining it?

L.sort(key=lambda item:item[1].index)

Hey look, that's weakref.py line 941 right there. (It happens to be
the alphabetically last use of lambda in the stdlib. Made a good
example, although it'd be more common to have a space after that
colon.)

ChrisA