Re: A replacement for lambda
- From: Stefan Rank <stefan.rank@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:08:28 +0200
on 30.07.2005 10:20 Paolino said the following:
why (x**2 with(x))<(x**3 with(x)) is not taken in consideration?
If 'with' must be there (and substitue 'lambda:') then at least the syntax is clear.IMO Ruby syntax is also clear.
I am sorry if this has already been proposed (I am sure it has).
Why not substitue python-lambdas with degenerated generator expressions::
(lambda x: func(x)) == (func(x) for x)
i.e. a one time callable generator expression (missing the `in` part). The arguments get passed into the generator, I am sure that can be combined with the PEP about passing args and Exceptions into a generator.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A replacement for lambda
- From: Reinhold Birkenfeld
- Re: A replacement for lambda
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: A replacement for lambda
- References:
- A replacement for lambda
- From: Mike Meyer
- Re: A replacement for lambda
- From: Christopher Subich
- A replacement for lambda
- Prev by Date: Re: To thread or not to thread
- Next by Date: rfc822 module bug?
- Previous by thread: Re: A replacement for lambda
- Next by thread: Re: A replacement for lambda
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|