PEP 312 - Making lambdas implicit worries me, surely it's just the name 'lambda' that is bad...

[Erik Max Francis]

Stephen Horne wrote:

> I don't really see the relevance of the fact that "'lambda' never
> starts a line". Other frequently used words (such as built-in function
> names) also never start a line - 'reduce' is as long as 'lambda' for a
> start. What is the relevance of the distinction between keywords and
> standard identifiers in this issue?

Furthermore, it's perfectly legal for lambda to "start a line," it's
just not particularly useful (i.e., an expression statement with no
effect).

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Life is an effort that deserves a better cause.
\__/ Karl Kraus
    The laws list / http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/
 Laws, rules, principles, effects, paradoxes, etc. in physics.