Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz>: > Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> Python doesn't have anonymous inner classes, but it has named inner >> classes, and that's quite sufficient. > > I would say it's Python's closures that make up for not having Java's > inner classes. > > Or to put it another way, inner classes are Java's kludgy way of > working around a lack of closures.
I actually quite like Java's inner classes. In fact, I think introducing lambdas into Java was a grave mistake; the silly competitive pressure from C# made them accept a very ugly and disheveled syntax. Inner classes *are* closures. They are more general than (Lisp-style) lambda's because they accept more than one method. Python, of course, has all of the above. Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
