On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:18:23 -0700, Adam Skutt wrote: > On Sep 5, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove- >> No. Lambdas are a *syntactical construct*, not an object. You wouldn't >> talk about "while objects" and "if objects" and "comment objects" >> *because they're not objects*. > This rhetoric precludes functions objects as well and is entirely non- > compelling.
Functions ARE objects in Python. They even inherit from object: >>> def f(): ... return None ... >>> isinstance(f, object) True Just because there is syntax for creating functions (at least two different syntax forms actually) doesn't "preclude function objects". There is syntax for dicts, and dict objects; syntax for lists, and list objects; syntax for strings, and string objects. But there's syntax for while loops, and no such thing as a while object. Lambda expressions are syntax for creating function objects. That's all there is to it, end of story. >> Functions created with def and functions created with lambda are >> *precisely* the same type of object. > Which means you have lambda objects. The fact they're same as any other > function is irrelevant and not especially interesting. They're *function* objects, not "lambda" objects: >>> type(lambda: None) <type 'function'> >> There is no such thing as a "lambda >> object" which is a "special case" of ordinary functions, there are just >> functions. > Hey, I was just trying to resolve tjr's view, he seemed to think that > .__name__ is different is pretty important, and he's the one you should > take your objections up with, not me. Nice try but no. It was YOU, not Terry, claiming that lambda's are a special kind of object different from ordinary functions. -- Steve -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
