Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes:
> But neither of these approaches would be good for lambdas. I'm okay with
> that -- lambda is a lightweight syntax, for lightweight needs. If your
> needs are great (doc strings, annotations, multiple statements) don't
> use lambda.

Yeah, but the fact that it's specifically part of C++'s lambda syntax
suggests that it is a very common thing to need with a lambda, doesn't
it?

What about... lambda a, = b: [stuff with captured value b] ?