Guido van Rossum wrote: > To those people who believe that lambda is required in some situations > because it behaves differently with respect to the surrounding scope > than def: it doesn't, and it never did. This is (still!) a > surprisingly common myth. I have no idea where it comes from; does > this difference exist in some other language that has lambda as well > as some other function definition mechanism?
Not that I know of. Maybe it's because these people first encountered the concept of a closure in when using lambda in Lisp or Scheme, and unconsciously assumed there was a dependency. > Parting shot: it appears that we're getting more and more > expressionized versions of statements: ... > Perhaps we could add a try/except/finally > expression, and allow assignments in expressions, and then we could > rid of statements altogether, turning Python into an expression > language. Change the use of parentheses a bit, and... voila, Lisp! :-) > <duck> Or we could go the other way and provide means of writing all expressions as statements. call: foo x lambda y,z: w =: +: y z print: "Result is" w <counter-duck> -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | Carpe post meridiam! | Christchurch, New Zealand | (I'm not a morning person.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ 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