On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:12:56 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Adam Skutt wrote:
>> There's nothing inappropriate about using a lambda for a function I
>> don't care to give a name. That's the entire reason they exist.
>
> But you did give a name -- 'b' -- and that is when a lambda expression
> is inappropriate and when a def statement should be used instead
I think that's too strong a claim. Functions are first class objects, and
there no reason why you can't do this:
def f():
return None
g = f
So what's wrong with doing this?
g = lambda: None
>>> The idea that Python has 'lambda objects' had caused no end of
>>> mischief over the years.
>> As near as I can tell, this is because you're insisting on creating a
>> semantic distinction where there just isn't one.
>
> To the contrary, I am objecting to the spurious distinction 'lambda
> object' as people often use it.
Agreed.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
