"Updating" lambda functions

[Terry Reedy]

"Bengt Richter" <bokr at oz.net> wrote in message 
news:cie73b$jma$0$216.39.172.122 at theriver.com...
>>> "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy <at> udel.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:mailman.3428.1095385637.5135.python-list <at> python.org...
>>>
>>> | I am curious if there is any reason other that habit carried over 
>>> from
>>> | other languages to not write the above as
>>> |
>>> | def fu(x): return x
>>> | def fu(x): return fu(x) + 17
>
>   obj.f = lambda args: body
>
> is possible without an intermediate local binding of f that might clobber 
> a previous f, as in
>
>   def f(args): body
>   obj.f = f
>   del f # if you want to clean up. But better save the old f in that 
> case?
>
> I'd rather use lambda.

Thanks.  I had not thought of this variation.  Similar would be
seq[n] = lambda <whatever>

Of course, I *might* prefer being able to write

def obj.f(params): <etc> # and
def seq[n](params): <etc>

Since def is effectively a binding statement, name to function object (like 
import, name to module), these seem not entirely unreasonable to me.

Terry J. Reedy