Dan Stromberg wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM, <c...@isbd.net> wrote: >>> Ah, so at least there is a reason for it, I'm far from being a >>> mathematician though so it's not particularly obvious (for me anyway). >> >> You're not alone; a lot of people find the terminology not intuitive. >> Even GvR has publicly lamented the choice of keyword. > > Was lambda almost removed from CPython 3.x?
I'm not sure about "almost", but there was serious discussion about removing it. > Anyway, pylint doesn't complain about a bare use of lambda, but it > does complain about a map applied to a lambda or a filter applied to a > lambda. Pylint says they could be replaced by a list comprehension, > with the warning "deprecated-lambda". The warning name is misleading, lambda is not deprecated. But stylistically, many people prefer to use a generator expression in place of map or filter: # instead of this map(lambda x: 2*x+1, values) # use this (2*x+1 for x in values) # instead of this filter(lambda x: x > 23, values) # use this (x for x in values if x > 23) -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
