The future of Python immutability

[Terry Reedy]

Adam Skutt wrote:
> On Sep 5, 10:34 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
>> Adam Skutt wrote:
>>> On Sep 5, 11:29 am, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
>>>> This is a pointless replacement for 'def b(x): return x+a'
>>> And?  That has nothing to do with anything I was saying whatsoever.
>> Agreed.  However, posts are read by newbies.
>> Posts that promote bad habits are fair game for comment.
> There's nothing inappropriate about using a lambda for a function I
> don't care to give a name.  That's the entire reason they exist.

But you did give a name -- 'b' -- and that is when a lambda expression 
is inappropriate and when a def statement should be used instead

>> The idea that Python has 'lambda objects' had caused no end of mischief
>> over the years.
> As near as I can tell, this is because you're insisting on creating a
> semantic distinction where there just isn't one.

To the contrary, I am objecting to the spurious distinction 'lambda 
object' as people often use it.

tjr