On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Mark H Harris <harrismh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/24/14 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Mark H Harris<harrismh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> What is needed is the explicit closure "grab" recommended by ChrisA. >> >> >> Which does work. You do know why, right? > > > Sure. ... but again, that's not the point. The point is NOT can you explain > why it works, the point is that as a lambda construct it is NOT clear why it > works, and because the construct does not match what lambda users might > expect (naturally) there are *constant* questions about it. > > So, again, I'll restate that the community might consider (over time) > whether the confusion created by lambda in python is worth the time and > trouble to maintain the construct in the language. Is the value add worth > the cost of confusion. I don't think so; others are bound to disagree.
Pure functional programming, from what I understand, doesn't *have* variables other than function arguments. So the way to implement "x = 1" is to call a subfunction with an argument of 1, which is referred to as x. (Am I right so far?) In that case, the default argument trick is exactly the right way to implement that in Python. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
