3 ms·

I write "real code" in Common Lisp, and I used something like what he dismissed as "useless in practice" twice today to make my code more readable and maintaina

• jerf 16y ago
  Yes, but Lisp code and Python code aren't the same when program in the native idioms. In Python if your function references are buried within each other deeply enough that this is even an issue you're already doing it wrong. This is not because Python is lacking power, but because you're not using the power Python actually has. With the generators, comprehensions, objects that implement __call_, bound method references, and all of the other tools available to you, you just shouldn't be defining functions in functions in functions. In Haskell where it's all functions everywhere, a function that is actually ten layer nested functions calling each other makes sense. (When using the "do" syntax sugar, every line that has <- is another nested function, so if you see ten <-s, you've got a ten-layer deep nested function. (Or eleven, if I've committed a fencepost error.)) If you're still fighting with Python by trying to jam functions in three layers deep, take a moment and try to learn to be more idiomatic. If you're in Haskell or Lisp and you never have functions three layers deep, take a moment and try to be more idiomatic. In practice, you do not need this in Python.
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]