Draft Pep (was: Re: Let's Talk About Lambda Functions!)

[Terry Reedy]

"Paul Rubin" <phr-n2002b at NOSPAMnightsong.com> wrote in message
news:7x1y9cr7cu.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> That's not a binding.  That two people in the thread have thought
it's
> a binding proves Bryan's point that the current scheme confuses
people
> about the nature of first-class functions.

To me, it looks like the confusion results from the two meanings of
'name': bound label (applicable to all objects) and definition name
(specific to functions, classes, and modules).  This leads to two
meanings of anonymous: no named references (applicable to all objects)
and no definition name (lambda functions - if you consider 'lambda' to
be the equivalent of 'no name given').  I don't see that this
confusion has anything to do with 'the nature of first-class
functions' (which is all there are in Python).

Terry J. Reedy