Why Python's Lambda is Broken and Can't be Fixed

They aren't broken, they work exactly as intended.<p>They are more limited than similar constructs in some other languages, which compels using named functions in situations where in other languages one might use anonymous ones. On balance, this isn't really a big deal.<p>Also, its quite possible to support multistatement lambdas within Python's indentation-sensitive structure; the decision not to do so isn't a result of technical limitations but of aesthetic judgements.

I have never used lambda in years of programming Python. If I need a one time function I define a function and use it once. To me it is more readable and readability is one of Python's greatest virtues.

Javascript's syntax for anonymous functions is awesome.<p>Coffeescript is okay, but it's just a little too terse -- it can sometimes be difficult to figure out what's going on.<p>The lambda syntax is indeed poor; since it forces the function body has to be an expression, it means you have to jump through hoops to get your implementation to be an expression (or give up and define + use a function).

The upshot of Python lambdas is they're really convenient in simple situation. It causes trouble when debugging though. Sometimes, I need to stick breakpoints in places that force me to rewrite a lambda as a regular function. The more that happens, the less I like lambdas.

Forgive the amateur question: when would one absolutely need to have a function defined inline?