On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 8:55:19 AM UTC+5:30, Random832 wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016, at 20:46, Gregory Ewing wrote: > > What *is* necessary and sufficient is to make each iteration > > of the for-loop create a new binding of the loop variable > > (and not any other variable!). > > I don't think that's true. I think this is logic that is excessively > tied to the toy examples that are used to illustrate the problem. > > You don't think it's common [at least, as far as defining a lambda > inside a loop at all is common] to do something like this? > > for a in collection: > b = some_calculation_of(a) > do_something_with(lambda: ... b ...)
Common? — Dunno What I know — Yuck! [Yeah… someone brought up on Lisp and APL and who finds C++ terrifying!] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
