On May 19, 5:22 am, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Arnaud Delobelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [...] > | Note that the same thing can be said about generator expressions, > | which are nothing more than anonymous, non-reusable, generator > | functions. > > Right. So if someone posted on genexp confusion, I would suggest > 'write a full generator function'.
I was just arguing against arguing for the removal of lambda on the basis that it doesn't add any functionality to the language! > | Instead these were _added_ to the language! > > As a convenience. > Actually, if one uses more that one for-clause in a generator expression, > there is a potential gotcha in relation to name capture. So if that bites, > the genexp is not so much a convenience, and one might better write > the full function. > > tjr Yes, IMHO this is a bug, and I wish I had the time to dive into the code to see if I can fix it. -- Arnaud -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
