On 2/6/06, Christopher Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/7/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brett Cannon wrote: > > > But I know that everyone and their email client is against me on this > > > one, so I am not going to really try to tear into this. But I do > > > think that lambda needs a renaming. Speaking as someone who still > > > forgets that Python's lambda is not the same as those found in > > > functional languages > > > > Can you elaborate on that point? I feel that Python's lambda is exactly > > the same as the one in Lisp. Sure, the Lisp lambda supports multiple > > sequential expressions (the "progn" feature), but I understand that > > this is just "an extension" (although one that has been around several > > decades). > > > > Of course, Python's expressions are much more limited as Lisp's (where > > you really can have macros and special forms in as the "expression" > > in a lambda), but the lambda construct itself seems to be the very > > same one. > > If we phrase it somewhat differently, we can see that lambdas are > different in Python and Lisp, in a very practical way. First: > Everything in Lisp is an expression. There's no statement, in Lisp, > that isn't also an expression. Lambdas in Lisp can contain arbitrary > expressions; therefore you can put any language construct inside a > lambda. In Python, you cannot put any language construct inside a > lambda. Python's and Lisp's lambdas are effectively totally different. > > +1 on keeping Lambda, +1 on making it more useful.
After lambda being made more useful, can I hope that I will be able to use lambda with multiple statements? :) Lambdas in Lisp and Python are different, but in the usability perspective they don't need to differ too much. -Jiwon _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com