On 2/8/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/8/06, Patrick Collison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And to think that people thought that keeping "lambda", but changing > > the name, would avoid all the heated discussion... :-) > > Note that I'm not participating in any attempts to "improve" lambda.
Then, is there any chance anonymous function - or closure - is supported in python 3.0 ? Or at least have a discussion about it? (IMHO, closure is very handy for function like map, sort etc. And having to write a function for multiple statement is kind of good in that function name explains what it does. However, I sometimes feel that having no name at all is clearer. Also, having to define a function when it'll be used only once seemed inappropriate sometimes.) or is there already discussion about it (and closed)? -Jiwon -Jiwon > > Just about the only improvement I'd like to see is to add parentheses > around the arguments, so you'd write lambda(x, y): x**y instead of > lambda x, y: x**y. > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > _______________________________________________ > 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/seojiwon%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ 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
