My argument was that a lack of real anonymous functions (> 1 instruction) is a problem in some quite common and useful scenarios.
If you REALLY can give good references that show this is wrong, I'm very interested (like, I would guess, most Ruby users).
(It would also be interesting with a link to a PEP or something with, as you claim, arguments that map etc should be discouraged -- and that is why no multi line lambdas exists. For instance, how would the syntax look like??)
My argument was just that it has nothing to do with significant whitespace, which is what you were complaining about. Python could be changed to have non-significant whitespace but retain its crippled lambda.
You made specific claims (regarding map recommendations in Python and that white space has nothing to do with one instruction lambdas). I asked for references. I assume you have none?
Note that with significant white space a usable syntax for multi-instruction lambdas seems... non-trivial. It seems to me as an unusually stupid fan boy position. But a few well argued references, which you lack, would change my mind. I'm no troll.
Edit: I might also note that your reference nng is a low-Karma account that argues that a cometing open source language to his love child is dead -- typical language war troll. Is that your only reference?
I should rest all this rip, but I can't help it: reference to multi-line lambdas in languages with Python-like syntax: http://cobra-language.com/trac/cobra/wiki/AnonMethod, http://boo.codehaus.org/Closures (yep, you're right, having multiple closures on a single line with offsite-rule syntax is "non-trivial" and no one solved this yet, but even one per line would be enough to make map and fold bearable, and ftr, I want to punch Guido or whoever else has a saying in language's design for not "stealing" this and adopting it into Python - I think there was a PEP along the lines that got killed and burried, can't find it now).
You asked about multi-line lambdas in python and I gave you a valid Python syntax for multi-line anonymous functions. Here is PEP 202, which simply says list comprehensions are more concise than for loops and map/filter etc.
Considering the way Python people have been trolling most every Perl discussion for the last few years when I've been on HN, I feel like I'm in orbit compared to people in the mud...
I might also note that I got two non sequitur answers in a row, so a joke like that is imho not an extreme reaction. Hardly as sarcastic as you was over a joke, at least...
Edit: I might also note that this article (76 votes) is 5 places below another roughly equally old article (8 hours) with 13 votes. So it is probably flagged to Hell. I do feel classy, compared to some others.