Something is rotten in Denmark...

[harrismh777]

Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> The reason why we have the kind of lambdas we have in python (and
> scheme, and javascript, etc.) is just that it is way easier to
> implement. That's all I've said. And people have gotten used to it,
> without ever realizing they are using something completely different
> from what Church called the "lambda abstraction".
>

    This is why I'm willing to accept Terry's 'hypnotized' 
accreditation. The term 'lambda' carries some baggage with it that 
python has chosen to ignore. Using the term 'lambda' as short-hand for 
'an easier way to code in-line functions' causes some of the hypnotizing 
effect, and much of the misunderstanding.

    Frankly, having thought this over for several days, I am now 
convinced the the issue at hand is two-fold:  1) the closure should 
provide option(s) for snap-shot, and 2) the lambda should be implemented 
in a 'purely' functional way or eliminated... if eliminated another 
synonym could be invented to represent in-line function short-hand.

    This is clearing up for me... but probably just beginning to simmer 
for others.


kind regards,
m harris