"Alexander Belopolsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/31/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now that I have sufficiently specified, please explain to me how a new > > syntax would improve the current situation? > > If you have read past the first paragraph in my previous post you > would see the answer to your question:
My question wasn't fully directed at you, it was more directed at others who desired the lazy syntax. > """ > I think we both agree that adding a keyword would just allow "promise > (lambda: ...)" be contracted to "lazy: ...". > """ > > I am not advocating for the new syntax. I was simply explaining the > difference between a promise and a lambda expression. And I was also trying to describe how you can get similar behavior strictly with lambdas if you are willing to say "I know I'm passing around promises". From what I understand, we do agree on these points, so I'll let this particular fork of the thread end. - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
