Stefan Rank wrote: > on 30.07.2005 10:20 Paolino said the following: >> why (x**2 with(x))<(x**3 with(x)) is not taken in consideration? >> >> If 'with' must be there (and substitue 'lambda:') then at least the >> syntax is clear.IMO Ruby syntax is also clear. >> > > I am sorry if this has already been proposed (I am sure it has). > > Why not substitue python-lambdas with degenerated generator expressions:: > > (lambda x: func(x)) == (func(x) for x) > > i.e. a one time callable generator expression (missing the `in` part). > The arguments get passed into the generator, I am sure that can be > combined with the PEP about passing args and Exceptions into a generator.
It's hard to spot, and it's too different to a genexp to have such a similar syntax. Reinhold -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
