On 2/8/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
Apparently, simplest example is,
collection.visit(lambda x: print x)
which currently is not possible. Another example is,
map(lambda x: if odd(x): return 1
else: return 0,
listOfNumbers)
(however, with new if/else expression, that's not so much a problem any more.)
Also, anything with exception handling code can't be without explicit
function definition.
collection.visit(lambda x: try: foo(x); except SomeError: error("error
message"))
Anyway, I was just curious that if anyone is interested in having more
closure-like closure in python 3.0 - in any form, not necessary an
extension on lambda.
-Jiwon
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
