[Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda

Jiwon Seo seojiwon at gmail.com
Tue Feb 7 09:34:39 CET 2006

On 2/6/06, Christopher Armstrong <radeex at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > Brett Cannon wrote:
> > > But I know that everyone and their email client is against me on this
> > > one, so I am not going to really try to tear into this.  But I do
> > > think that lambda needs a renaming.  Speaking as someone who still
> > > forgets that Python's lambda is not the same as those found in
> > > functional languages
> >
> > Can you elaborate on that point? I feel that Python's lambda is exactly
> > the same as the one in Lisp. Sure, the Lisp lambda supports multiple
> > sequential expressions (the "progn" feature), but I understand that
> > this is just "an extension" (although one that has been around several
> > decades).
> >
> > Of course, Python's expressions are much more limited as Lisp's (where
> > you really can have macros and special forms in as the "expression"
> > in a lambda), but the lambda construct itself seems to be the very
> > same one.
> If we phrase it somewhat differently, we can see that lambdas are
> different in Python and Lisp, in a very practical way. First:
> Everything in Lisp is an expression. There's no statement, in Lisp,
> that isn't also an expression. Lambdas in Lisp can contain arbitrary
> expressions; therefore you can put any language construct inside a
> lambda. In Python, you cannot put any language construct inside a
> lambda. Python's and Lisp's lambdas are effectively totally different.
> +1 on keeping Lambda, +1 on making it more useful.

After lambda being made more useful, can I hope that I will be able to
use lambda with multiple statements? :) Lambdas in Lisp and Python are
different, but in the usability perspective they don't need to differ
too much.


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list