Re: lambda constructions

graham.matthews@maths.anu.edu.au
31 Jan 1995 03:05:23 GMT

Graham Matthews:
> As I think most programmers use lambda constructions as term closures,
> I would like to see the default behaviour for lambda constructions changed
> to form closures.
Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl writes:
>...(1) pulling in the rest of the world to
>strengthen your argument is a sign of weakness...
aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:
>Well, let's just admit the Python is not a wizz-bang functional
>programming language, and I for one would be very upset if it
>became one.

My suggestion that the default semantics for lambda constructions be closure
forming is along way from suggesting that Python be turned into a "wizz-bang
functional programming language".

aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:
>I'm happy to be wrong, but I think a lot of the stuff closures and
>continuations are good for can be handled via object
>encapsulation, appropriately designed. I'm not too worried about
>Church's numerals and the Ackerman function, myself.

I am not even going to grace the last sentence with a reply. If thats all
you think functional programming is good for then I suggest you need to
learn a little bit more about it.

>A good example of the type of problem you have in mind might
>be instructive. -a.

I gave an example of where I wanted to use such semantics. Perhaps you
need to read the articles you reply to.

graham

--
                      Je suis pour le communisme
                      Je suis pour le socialisme
                      Je suis pour le capitalisme
                     Parce que je suis opportuniste