3 ms·
Mis-seeing it as an array makes a lot of sense for the f(x) syntax. That's probably even more true than it would be in a higher level language like python, beca
by neuland 10y ago
Mis-seeing it as an array makes a lot of sense for the f(x) syntax. That's probably even more true than it would be in a higher level language like python, because you're doing more stuff like that.
But for Python3 lambda type hints, I'm reading a definitive comment in PEP 3107 that it isn't supported [0]. Anecdotally, that also jives with what I'm seeing on the REPL.
Python 3.6.0 (default, Jan 18 2017, 02:51:38)
[GCC 4.9.2] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import typing
>>> f = lambda x: int: x * 6
File "<stdin>", line 1
f = lambda x: int: x * 6
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
[0] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/#lambda https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/#lambda
- greglindahl 10y agoThe docs pointed me to PEP 484 and 526, that's why I mentioned exactly what I'd looked at. PEP 3107 is not mentioned in https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html Not trying to be pedantic here, just illustrating the point that this style of function can collide with future language developments, and confuse users. Here's someone complaining that PEP 484 doesn't mention the impact of the new syntax on lambda: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139708.html https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/1397...