Russell wrote: >I want my code to be Python 3000 compliant, and hear >that lambda is being eliminated. The problem is that I >want to partially bind an existing function with a value >"foo" that isn't known until run-time: > > someobject.newfunc = lambda x: f(foo, x) > >The reason a nested function doesn't work for this is >that it is, well, dynamic. I don't know how many times >or with what foo's this will be done. > > That's nonsense! A lambda function *IS* a nested function, and has *NO* extra capabilities over a nested function. If you can do something with a lambda, you can also do it with a nested function defined at the same point. However, a nested function *does* give you several extra capabilities: (1) it has a name rather than being anonymous like the lambda, and (2) the body can use statements rather just one expression.
So use a nested function. You'll get the same capabilities, plus a name, plus more expressive power in the body. You won't lose anything. and your code will survive any eventual removal of the lambda functionality. >Now, I am sure there are a half-dozen ways to do this. >I just want the one, new and shiny, Pythonic way. ;-) > > > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
