Let's Talk About Lambda Functions!

[Steve Holden]

"Paul Rubin" <phr-n2002b at NOSPAMnightsong.com> wrote in message
news:7x3cu6f8sv.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> writes:
> > It's not an issue of syntax sugar as superficial as what keyword to
> > use.  A REAL lambda, by any other name -- the ability to package up
> > ANY chunk of code, not just an expression -- might add power enough
> > to justify its existence.  Today's lambda's just deadweight.
>
> I agree that the current incarnation of lambda is deficient.  I
> think it should be strengthened so you can lambdafy arbitrary code,
> not eliminated.  The current version is better than nothing, though.
>
> I don't see why the anti-lambda contingent doesn't want to also
> get rid of anonymous scalar expressions.  I mean,
>
>    a = b + (c * d)
>
> the horror!  Why not insist on naming the subexpressions, e.g.
>
>    temp = c * d
>    a = b + temp

k00l! Then we *could* use

    (a)

to represent a single-element tuple.

that's-enough-ly y'rs  - steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Holden                                 http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming                http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------