Draft Pep (was: Re: Let's Talk About Lambda Functions!)
tjreedy at udel.edu
Tue Aug 6 16:49:59 CEST 2002
"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
> a binding proves Bryan's point that the current scheme confuses
> 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
More information about the Python-list