[Python-Dev] Let's just *keep* lambda
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Thu Feb 9 06:33:01 CET 2006
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Thu Feb 9 06:33:01 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 ]
Jiwon Seo wrote: > Then, is there any chance anonymous function - or closure - is > supported in python 3.0 ? Or at least have a discussion about it? That discussion appears to be closed (or, not really: everybody can discuss, but it likely won't change anything). > (IMHO, closure is very handy for function like map, sort etc. And > having to write a function for multiple statement is kind of good in > that function name explains what it does. However, I sometimes feel > that having no name at all is clearer. Also, having to define a > function when it'll be used only once seemed inappropriate sometimes.) Hmm. Can you give real-world examples (of existing code) where you needed this? Regards, Martin
- 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 ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list