Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on

Hi,

In message "Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so
on"
    on Mon, 12 May 2008 10:17:56 +0900, Evan Phoenix
<evanfallingsnow.net> writes:

|> I don't think def (or define) always mean a method. 
We define (give a
|> name) to methods, classes, modules etc.  The reason we
use def for
|> methods is the spirit of Huffman encoding.
|
|In the spirit of that, how about 'lam() { }' to create a
lambda? 

It remind me "lamination" rather than
"lambda" when I see the word
"lam".  I don't know why.

							matz.