The future of Python immutability
steven at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au
Mon Sep 7 06:27:01 CEST 2009
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:18:23 -0700, Adam Skutt wrote:
> On Sep 5, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-
>> No. Lambdas are a *syntactical construct*, not an object. You wouldn't
>> talk about "while objects" and "if objects" and "comment objects"
>> *because they're not objects*.
> This rhetoric precludes functions objects as well and is entirely non-
Functions ARE objects in Python. They even inherit from object:
>>> def f():
... return None
>>> isinstance(f, object)
Just because there is syntax for creating functions (at least two
different syntax forms actually) doesn't "preclude function objects".
There is syntax for dicts, and dict objects; syntax for lists, and list
objects; syntax for strings, and string objects. But there's syntax for
while loops, and no such thing as a while object.
Lambda expressions are syntax for creating function objects. That's all
there is to it, end of story.
>> Functions created with def and functions created with lambda are
>> *precisely* the same type of object.
> Which means you have lambda objects. The fact they're same as any other
> function is irrelevant and not especially interesting.
They're *function* objects, not "lambda" objects:
>>> type(lambda: None)
>> There is no such thing as a "lambda
>> object" which is a "special case" of ordinary functions, there are just
> Hey, I was just trying to resolve tjr's view, he seemed to think that
> .__name__ is different is pretty important, and he's the one you should
> take your objections up with, not me.
Nice try but no. It was YOU, not Terry, claiming that lambda's are a
special kind of object different from ordinary functions.
More information about the Python-list