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

Jiwon Seo seojiwon at gmail.com
Thu Feb 9 02:22:31 CET 2006

On 2/8/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Patrick Collison <patrick at collison.ie> wrote:
> > And to think that people thought that keeping "lambda", but changing
> > the name, would avoid all the heated discussion... :-)
> Note that I'm not participating in any attempts to "improve" lambda.

Then, is there any chance anonymous function - or closure - is
supported in python 3.0 ? Or at least have a discussion about it?

(IMHO, closure is very handy for function like map, sort etc. And
having to write a function for multiple statement is kind of good in
that function name explains what it does. However, I sometimes feel
that having no name at all is clearer. Also, having to define a
function when it'll be used only once seemed inappropriate sometimes.)

or is there already discussion about it (and closed)?



> Just about the only improvement I'd like to see is to add parentheses
> around the arguments, so you'd write lambda(x, y): x**y instead of
> lambda x, y: x**y.
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/seojiwon%40gmail.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list