Alain Ketterlin writes: > Gregory Ewing writes: > > > Alain Ketterlin wrote: > >> But going against generally accepted semantics should at least be > >> clearly indicated. Lambda is one of the oldest computing > >> abstraction, and they are at the core of any functional > >> programming language. > > > > Yes, and Python's lambdas behave exactly the *same* way as every > > other language's lambdas in this area. Changing it to do early > > binding would be "going against generally accepted semantics". > > You must be kidding. Like many others, you seem to think that Scheme is > a typical functional language, which it is not. Learn about ML (i.e., > SML or CaML), Erlang, Haskell, etc. You can read, e.g., > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_%28computer_science%29
That seems a good read, but I don't see how it supports your contention that Python goes against generally accepted semantics. > The reason why we have the kind of lambdas we have in python (and > scheme, and javascript, etc.) is just that it is way easier to > implement. That's all I've said. And people have gotten used to it, > without ever realizing they are using something completely different > from what Church called the "lambda abstraction". Church did not deal with assignment statements and order of execution. Python has to. > Whether the python/... concept of lambda is useful or not is another, > subjective question, that I'm not intersted in. If you're pleased with > it, go ahead. > > (End of discussion for me.) Oh well. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
