On 16 Apr, 10:21, Hrvoje Niksic <hnik...@xemacs.org> wrote: > mousemeat <mousem...@gmail.com> writes: > > Thank you for everyone's explanations, help and interest on this > > one. I have reworked my code as described and promised myself not > > to use lambdas ever again (i still think they are an elegant idea, > > but if they are incompatible with frequently used modules, then the > > inelegance of reality quickly overshadows the elegance of the > > theory). > > I think you're going too far concluding that lambdas are unusable. > lambdas are a problem only when they are stored as data attributes > that need to be pickled, but that's far from being the only use case. > You can still use them for what they're meant to be used: tiny anonymous > function-expressions, typically passed as parameters to functions that > expect a callback. > > Avoiding lambdas because they're unpicklable is like avoiding bound > methods because they're just as unpicklable.
Correct me if i am wrong, but i can pickle an object that contains a bound method (it's own bound method). I cannot pickle an object that contains a lambda function. Doesn't that make lambda's less pickleable? (I don't mean to be argumentative, i'm trying to understand python's syntax a little better.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
