"Arnaud Delobelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 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!
I sort of understood that ;-) Like Guido, I am split on keep/remove. However, I have decided to leave lambda out of my Python-subset executable-pseudocode algorithm language. I have not decided whether or not to include genexps. | > | 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. | 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. If I do include them, I might restrict them to one for-clause because of that glitch, whose details I keep forgetting. tjr | -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list