Let's Talk About Lambda Functions!

[Paul Rubin]

Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> writes:
> It's not an issue of syntax sugar as superficial as what keyword to
> use.  A REAL lambda, by any other name -- the ability to package up
> ANY chunk of code, not just an expression -- might add power enough
> to justify its existence.  Today's lambda's just deadweight.  

I agree that the current incarnation of lambda is deficient.  I
think it should be strengthened so you can lambdafy arbitrary code,
not eliminated.  The current version is better than nothing, though.

I don't see why the anti-lambda contingent doesn't want to also
get rid of anonymous scalar expressions.  I mean,

   a = b + (c * d)

the horror!  Why not insist on naming the subexpressions, e.g.

   temp = c * d
   a = b + temp