On 9 Aug 2009, at 13:03 , Gerald Britton wrote:
Your proposal certainly would lead to ambiguity in reading: _ = myfunc if _:_(_:_, ...)
The "if _:_" means:
if '_' evaluates to boolean true, call it
The second _:_ uses your new lambda construct. Could a compiler parse it? Probably. Can a human understand it? Maybe, with difficulty, but it would surely lead to hard-to-find errors.
And from the point of view of someone who'd really like a "better lambda", the "implicit lambda" idea is pretty much worthless. As others have said, it saves a few keystrokes and that's pretty much it. If work is done towards a better/more useable lambda, it should at least encompass full-blown anonymous expressions, not limit itself to the current restricted lambda.