"Updating" lambda functions

[Bengt Richter]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:46:12 +0000 (UTC), Steven Bethard <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote:

>Elaine Jackson <elainejackson7355 <at> home.com> writes:
>> 
>> "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
>> | etc
>> 
>> In my interpreter (IDLE 1.0 on Windows 98) it causes an infinite regress.
>
>Yes, it will, exactly as the lambda version would have.  (And all the 
>solutions suggested to you for the lambda form are equally applicable to the 
>def form.)  The question is why use the lambda form when you *do* want to bind 
>your function to a name?  Basically,
>
>f = lambda args: body
>
>is equivalent to
>
>def f(args): body
>
>except that the def body is a set of statements (so you have to use 'return'), 
>and the lambda body is a single expression.
Yes, but

   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.

>
>Not that it's coming any time soon, but Python 3000 is supposed to remove 
>lambda functions, so when you really *do* want to bind a function to a name 
>(like in your case here), it would probably be a good habit to get into to use 
>defs instead.
>
Well, if lambda is removed (or not ;-), I hope an anonymous def expression is allowed,
so we can write

   obj.f = def(args):
               body
or

   obj.f = def(args): body

or

   obj.f = (
       def(args):
           body
   ) # at or to the left of the def column, for final dedent without special ')' processing.


(where def body indentation is referenced from wherever the def is)

Regards,
Bengt Richter