Something is rotten in Denmark...

[harrismh777]

harrismh777 wrote:
> Allow me to clarify... I'm not speaking about whether the lambda is
> short-hand for def, ... that part of the docs I understand well!... no
> problems there.

Allow me to clarify a little further...   the docs are misleading in 
that they state that the lambda can be coded (as an expression) where 
the def 'statement' cannot be coded.   Well, I know, this is speaking to 
the syntax rules not the binding rules, but the point is that it implies 
that the lambda can be used where the def cannot... and this is where 
the hypnosis takes place... we assume that something 'additional' is 
happening with the lambda that is *not* happening with the def.

And the truth is that the def (save its coding syntax) is the 'same' 
critter as the lambda. It seems, in fact, that the only difference is 
two ... that  1) the lambda does not automatically bind to a name, and 
2) the lambda is a constant expression rather than a statement.


<sigh>


thanks for listening...


m harris