On 2010-05-07, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:34 PM, Artur Siekielski wrote:
Hello.
I found this strange behaviour of lambdas, closures and list
comprehensions:
funs = [lambda: x for x in range(5)]
[f() for f in funs]
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4]
You succumbed to lambda hypnosis, a
On 5/7/2010 8:31 AM, Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2010-05-07, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:34 PM, Artur Siekielski wrote:
Hello.
I found this strange behaviour of lambdas, closures and list
comprehensions:
funs = [lambda: x for x in range(5)]
[f() for f in funs]
[4, 4, 4, 4,
On 5/6/2010 12:34 PM Artur Siekielski said...
Hello.
I found this strange behaviour of lambdas, closures and list
comprehensions:
funs = [lambda: x for x in range(5)]
funs is now a list of lambda functions that return 'x' (whatever it
currently is from whereever it's accessible when
Artur Siekielski artur.siekielski at gmail.com writes:
Of course I was expecting the list [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] as the result. The
'x' was bound to the final value of 'range(5)' expression for ALL
defined functions. Can you explain this? Is this only counterintuitive
example or an error in
On May 6, 9:34 pm, Artur Siekielski artur.siekiel...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello.
I found this strange behaviour of lambdas, closures and list
comprehensions:
funs = [lambda: x for x in range(5)]
[f() for f in funs]
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4]
Of course I was expecting the list [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] as the
On 5/6/2010 3:34 PM, Artur Siekielski wrote:
Hello.
I found this strange behaviour of lambdas, closures and list
comprehensions:
funs = [lambda: x for x in range(5)]
[f() for f in funs]
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4]
You succumbed to lambda hypnosis, a common malady ;-).
The above will not work in 3.x,
