我在试着找出Python的lambda。lambda是那些在现实生活中应该被遗忘的“有趣”语言项之一吗?
我确信有一些边缘情况可能需要它,但是考虑到它的模糊性,它在未来版本中被重新定义的可能性(我基于它的各种定义的假设)以及降低的编码清晰度——应该避免它吗?
这让我想起了C类型的溢出(缓冲区溢出)——指向顶部变量并重载以设置其他字段值。这感觉有点像技术人员的表演,但维护程序员的噩梦。
我在试着找出Python的lambda。lambda是那些在现实生活中应该被遗忘的“有趣”语言项之一吗?
我确信有一些边缘情况可能需要它,但是考虑到它的模糊性,它在未来版本中被重新定义的可能性(我基于它的各种定义的假设)以及降低的编码清晰度——应该避免它吗?
这让我想起了C类型的溢出(缓冲区溢出)——指向顶部变量并重载以设置其他字段值。这感觉有点像技术人员的表演,但维护程序员的噩梦。
当前回答
只是函数的一种奇特说法。除了它的名字,它没有什么晦涩、吓人或神秘的地方。当你读到下面这行,在脑海中用函数替换lambda:
>>> f = lambda x: x + 1
>>> f(3)
4
它只是定义了一个关于x的函数。其他一些语言,比如R,显式地说:
> f = function(x) { x + 1 }
> f(3)
4
你看到了什么?这是编程中最自然的事情之一。
其他回答
我发现lambda对于执行相同功能的函数列表很有用,但适用于不同的情况。
就像Mozilla的复数规则:
plural_rules = [
lambda n: 'all',
lambda n: 'singular' if n == 1 else 'plural',
lambda n: 'singular' if 0 <= n <= 1 else 'plural',
...
]
# Call plural rule #1 with argument 4 to find out which sentence form to use.
plural_rule[1](4) # returns 'plural'
如果你必须为所有这些定义一个函数,到最后你会疯掉的。 另外,像plural_rule_1, plural_rule_2这样的函数名也不太好。当你依赖于变量函数id时,你需要eval()它。
我怀疑lambda不会消失。 请参阅Guido关于最终放弃尝试删除它的帖子。也请参阅冲突概要。
你可以看看这篇文章,了解更多Python函数特性背后的交易历史: http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/04/origins-of-pythons-functional-features.html
奇怪的是,最初引入lambda和其他函数特性的map、filter和reduce函数在很大程度上已经被列表推导式和生成器表达式所取代。事实上,在Python 3.0中,reduce函数已从内置函数列表中删除。(但是,没有必要投诉lambda、map或filter的删除:它们被保留了。: -)
我个人的意见是:就清晰度而言,lambda值不了多少。通常有一个更清晰的不包含的解。
首先恭喜你算出了。在我看来,这是一个非常强大的构念。如今函数式编程语言的发展趋势无疑表明,在不久的将来,它既不应该被避免,也不会被重新定义。
你只需要换个角度思考。我相信你很快就会爱上它的。但是如果你只和python打交道要小心。因为lambda不是一个真正的闭包,它以某种方式“坏了”:python的lambda坏了
我已经使用Python好几年了,我从来没有遇到过需要lambda的情况。实际上,正如教程所述,这只是语法糖。
I started reading David Mertz's book today 'Text Processing in Python.' While he has a fairly terse description of Lambda's the examples in the first chapter combined with the explanation in Appendix A made them jump off the page for me (finally) and all of a sudden I understood their value. That is not to say his explanation will work for you and I am still at the discovery stage so I will not attempt to add to these responses other than the following: I am new to Python I am new to OOP Lambdas were a struggle for me Now that I read Mertz, I think I get them and I see them as very useful as I think they allow a cleaner approach to programming.
He reproduces the Zen of Python, one line of which is Simple is better than complex. As a non-OOP programmer reading code with lambdas (and until last week list comprehensions) I have thought-This is simple?. I finally realized today that actually these features make the code much more readable, and understandable than the alternative-which is invariably a loop of some sort. I also realized that like financial statements-Python was not designed for the novice user, rather it is designed for the user that wants to get educated. I can't believe how powerful this language is. When it dawned on me (finally) the purpose and value of lambdas I wanted to rip up about 30 programs and start over putting in lambdas where appropriate.