Anonymus functions revisited

[bruno modulix]

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>>letting tuples-like objects (x,y,z=0) acting as functions on other
>>tuples I wonder why this would not be a good starting point of
>>rethinking anonymus functions?
>>
>>In Georges proposition the action is
>>
>>   (x,y,z=0) -> (x,y,z)
>>
>>i.e. mapping tuples on other tuples. This is equivalent to
>>
>>lambda x,y,z=0:(x,y,z)
> 
> 
> As you say for yourself, that's just lambda in disguise. 

Not exactly in fact - unless I messed something. There are 2 problems 
here: a more flexible tuple unpacking, *and* a lambda in disguise. 
Actually, I'd go + 1 for the first, -1 for the second

> So I guess the same
> arguments about the in- or exclusion of lambda apply here. 

For the second part, yes. Not for the first one.

> I personally
> like lambda, but _can_ live without it.

Yes, one can live without...
<troll>
...and without list comprehensions, __call__ and other special methods, 
descriptors, metaclasses, first class functions, builtin datatypes like 
lists and dicts, exceptions, dynamic typing, garbage collection,  etc 
too. Hurray, let's all happily program in assembly !-)
</troll>

-- 
bruno desthuilliers
ruby -e "print 'onurb at xiludom.gro'.split('@').collect{|p| 
p.split('.').collect{|w| w.reverse}.join('.')}.join('@')"