On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a ?crit :
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
b) give up on using an anonymous function and create a named successor
function with def,
This is what you have to do.
In response to my question, ``What is the idiomatically appropriate
Python way to pass, as a function-type parameter, code that is most
clearly written with a local variable?'', a number of you made very
helpful suggestions, including the use of a default argument; if one
wanted to give a name to
David G. Wonnacott wrote:
In response to my question, ``What is the idiomatically appropriate
Python way to pass, as a function-type parameter, code that is most
clearly written with a local variable?'', a number of you made very
helpful suggestions, including the use of a default argument;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the idiomatically appropriate Python way to pass, as a
function-type parameter, code that is most clearly written with a local
variable?
For example, map takes a function-type parameter:
map(lambda x: x+1, [5, 17, 49.5])
What if, instead of just having
Many thanks to those of you who responded to my question about
anonymous functions with local variables, filling me in on
e) do something else clever and Pythonic that I don't know about yet?
by pointing out that I can use (among other good things) lambda with
default arguments. That should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
What is the idiomatically appropriate Python way to pass, as a
function-type parameter, code that is most clearly written with a
local variable?
def functionWithLocal(andArg):
localVar = 42
return andArg+localVar
map(functionWithLocal, range(42))
For
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
b) give up on using an anonymous function and create a named successor
function with def,
This is what you have to do.
Not necessarily.
map(lambda x, one=1: one + x, range(42))
For some reason
What is the idiomatically appropriate Python way to pass, as a function-type
parameter, code that is most clearly written with a local variable?
For example, map takes a function-type parameter:
map(lambda x: x+1, [5, 17, 49.5])
What if, instead of just having x+1, I want an expression that
optional arguments.
map(lambda x, one=1: x + one, ...)
it is entirely possible, however, to implement let in python.
def let(**kw):
sys._getframe(2).f_locals.update(kw)
def begin(*a):
return a[-1]
map(lambda x: begin(let(one=1), x+one), range(10))
i really should warn you, though, that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the idiomatically appropriate Python way to pass, as a function-type
parameter, code that is most clearly written with a local variable?
For example, map takes a function-type parameter:
map(lambda x: x+1, [5, 17, 49.5])
What if, instead of just having
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
b) give up on using an anonymous function and create a named successor
function with def,
This is what you have to do. For some reason mr van Rossum has this aversion
to anonymous functions, and tries to cripple them as much as
11 matches
Mail list logo
