Alain Ketterlin wrote:
The reason why we have the kind of lambdas we have in python (and scheme, and javascript, etc.) is just that it is way easier to implement. That's all I've said. And people have gotten used to it, without ever realizing they are using something completely different from what Church called the "lambda abstraction".
This is why I'm willing to accept Terry's 'hypnotized' accreditation. The term 'lambda' carries some baggage with it that python has chosen to ignore. Using the term 'lambda' as short-hand for 'an easier way to code in-line functions' causes some of the hypnotizing effect, and much of the misunderstanding.
Frankly, having thought this over for several days, I am now convinced the the issue at hand is two-fold: 1) the closure should provide option(s) for snap-shot, and 2) the lambda should be implemented in a 'purely' functional way or eliminated... if eliminated another synonym could be invented to represent in-line function short-hand.
This is clearing up for me... but probably just beginning to simmer for others.
kind regards, m harris -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
