[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > What is the idiomatically appropriate Python way to pass, as a > "function-type parameter", code that is most clearly written with a > local variable?
def functionWithLocal(andArg): localVar = 42 return andArg+localVar map(functionWithLocal, range(42)) > For example, map takes a function-type parameter: > > map(lambda x: x+1, [5, 17, 49.5]) > > What if, instead of just having x+1, I want an expression that is > most clearly coded with a variable that is needed _only_ inside the > lambda, e.g. if I wanted to use the name "one" instead of 1: > > map(lambda x: (one = 1 x+one), [5, 17, 49.5]) map(lambda x, one=42 : x + one, [5, 17, 49.5]) > This sort of thing is of course straightforward in many other > languages with anonymous functions (Scheme, Haskell, Smalltalk, etc), > and I saw in the archives the discussion from 2003 about "How do I > get Scheme-like let bindings in Python". Many of the answers seem to > boil down to "You should not write Scheme programs in Python, you > should write Python programs in Python". A very sensible advice IMHO. Python - while having some support for FP - is still statement-based and mostly on the OO/procedural side. (snip) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
