Re: lambda() naming

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul DuBois" <paul@snake.net> To: "PHP Development Team" <php-dev@lists.php.net> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 08:24 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] lambda() naming > At 1:36 AM +0300 2000-06-04, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > >AG>> I prefer not having aliases and I definitely prefer having a more PHP'ish > >AG>> name such as anonymous_function() or create_function() than a > >name such as > >AG>> lambda() which is only intuitive to a very small subset of PHP users. > > > >In fact, I don't believe in such thing as "intuitive function > >name". That's almost as "intuitive machine code". Function name is an > >axiom, you look it on the manual and learn it. You will do it anyway to > >know arguments, BTW :) And lambda is much shorter to type than > >anonymous_function. :) > > This is an argument that all words are equally meaningful, which is > false. > > lambda() is about as intuitively meaningful as cdr(), i.e., not at all. :-) > > -- > Paul DuBois, paul@snake.net > Wrong. lambda() has a well-defined meaning in theoretical algebra, while the other doesn't. :) Of course non-math people may not understand it, but they can do away without it. Only complicated minds would find a use for lambda :)) So if it quacks and has feathers, why don't we call it a "duck" instead of an "animal_that_has_feathers_and_quacks" ? :) I think lambda() is fine, you just need a sample code to undersand it. On the other hand, many of us who came from Windows world have not encountered "regex" before, being a computer science term. But we _learn_, that's the point. And we didn't bother calling it "pattern_matching" either.:-) - Mark Melvin hylabs.com