News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Python past, present, and future with Guido van Rossum [a... by Certhas on Thursday February 23, 2017 @06:35AM (#13713110)
I extensively use closures in Python, particularly jit compiled closures with numba. I don't really have any problems with that, why do you say it's unpythonic?
Re:Python past, present, and future with Guido van Rossum [a... by steinuil on Thursday February 23, 2017 @06:41AM (#13713137)
I'm not saying they are, I don't think I've used the language enough to be able to tell what's pythonic and what's not. It's just that I think the language support could be better: why defining a function and calling it right after? That's what lambdas are for.
Re:Python past, present, and future with Guido van Rossum [a... by StavrosK on Thursday February 23, 2017 @06:47AM (#13713161)
> why defining a function and calling it right after?

Documentation.

Re:Python past, present, and future with Guido van Rossum [a... by coldtea on Thursday February 23, 2017 @06:58AM (#13713203)
You could have named closures, so that's hardly a valid reason.
Re:Python past, present, and future with Guido van Rossum [a... by xapata on Thursday February 23, 2017 @05:37PM (#13718522)
We prefer to have only one obvious way to do it. The more good techniques in existence, the less there's a clear sense of "Pythonic".

It's just a preference. Many tasks have more than one obvious way. But if you're asking to add a new feature, you should explain why it's worth the downside of adding yet another way to do it.