[Python-Dev] Let's just keep lambda (original) (raw)
Jiwon Seo seojiwon at gmail.com
Thu Feb 9 05:03:31 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2/8/06, Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote:
Jiwon Seo <seojiwon at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/8/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > > On 2/8/06, Patrick Collison <patrick at collison.ie> wrote: > > > And to think that people thought that keeping "lambda", but changing > > > the name, would avoid all the heated discussion... :-) > > > > Note that I'm not participating in any attempts to "improve" lambda. > > Then, is there any chance anonymous function - or closure - is > supported in python 3.0 ? Or at least have a discussion about it? > > or is there already discussion about it (and closed)? Closures already exist in Python. >>> def foo(bar): ... return lambda: bar + 1 ... >>> a = foo(5) >>> a() 6
Not in that we don't have anonymous function (or closure) with multiple statements. Also, current limited closure does not capture programming context - or variables.
-Jiwon
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]