> > Already > > lambda x,y,z=0:(x,y,z) > > is a problem for me. > > > > Why not: > > try: > > (x,y,z) > > except NameError: > > z=0 > > (x,y,z) > > ? > > Because they are not equivallent. > > > Watching the last piece of code > > can even directly be seen, that there > > is eventually a NameError > > problem with z to handle, > > And suppose there is a NameError with x, > your piece of code will then assign 0 to > z. Do you think that is what the original > code wanted? Ok, I see. But inspite of the fact, that I have overseen this while writing the code, this bad assignment won't much matter, because the script will fail anyway in (x,y,z), so there will be no effect on the subsequent code.
If I had written: try: z except NameError: z=0 #:try/except (x,y,z) I would be closer to the original idea behind lambda x,y,z=0:(x,y,z) right? > > [lambda] It is usable as an argument. I have to admit, that I still don't understand the concept behind lambda, because this construct in new to me. Maybe it is because I still haven't seen any example making it clear, why lambda is the only or at least the better way to go. Even if I am very interested in understanding and discussing lambda related matters here, I see, that with discussing it we are probably far away from the original intent of Kay who expects in this thread postings expressing an opinion about introduction of the (x,y,z=0) -> (x,y,z) construct in Python. Claudio -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list