explain this function to me, lambda confusion

[Arnaud Delobelle]

On May 19, 5:22 am, "Terry Reedy" <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
> "Arnaud Delobelle" <arno... at googlemail.com> wrote in message
[...]
> | Note that the same thing can be said about generator expressions,
> | which are nothing more than anonymous, non-reusable, generator
> | functions.
>
> Right.  So if someone posted on genexp confusion, I would suggest
> 'write a full generator function'.

I was just arguing against arguing for the removal of lambda on the
basis that it doesn't add any functionality to the language!

> | Instead these were _added_ to the language!
>
> As a convenience.
> Actually, if one uses more that one for-clause in a generator expression,
> there is a potential gotcha in relation to name capture.  So if that bites,
> the genexp is not so much a convenience, and one might better write
> the full function.
>
> tjr

Yes, IMHO this is a bug, and I wish I had the time to dive into the
code to see if I can fix it.

--
Arnaud