I understand that there are a number of people who wish to remove lambda entirely from the language. Nevertheless, I find it a useful and powerful tool in actual development.
Any replacement must support the following: *delayed evaluation*. I need a convenient (def is not always convenient) way of saying, "don't do this now". That is why I use lambda. -- Seth Nielson On 7/30/05, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
