We Keep Coding

How can I convert lambda from Python2 to Python3? [duplicate]

In Python 2, I can write:
In [5]: points = [ (1,2), (2,3)]
In [6]: min(points, key=lambda (x, y): (x*x + y*y))
Out[6]: (1, 2)
But that is not supported in 3.x:
File "<stdin>", line 1
min(points, key=lambda (x, y): (x*x + y*y))
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
The straightforward workaround is to index explicitly into the tuple that was passed:
>>> min(points, key=lambda p: p[0]*p[0] + p[1]*p[1])
(1, 2)
This is very ugly. If the lambda were a function, I could do
def some_name_to_think_of(p):
x, y = p
return x*x + y*y
But because the lambda only supports a single expression, it's not possible to put the x, y = p part into it.
How else can I work around this limitation?

No, there is no other way. You covered it all. The way to go would be to raise this issue on the Python ideas mailing list, but be prepared to argue a lot over there to gain some traction.
Actually, just not to say "there is no way out", a third way could be to implement one more level of lambda calling just to unfold the parameters - but that would be at once more inefficient and harder to read than your two suggestions:
min(points, key=lambda p: (lambda x,y: (x*x + y*y))(*p))
Python 3.8 update
Since the release of Python 3.8, PEP 572 — assignment expressions — have been available as a tool.
So, if one uses a trick to execute multiple expressions inside a lambda - I usually do that by creating a tuple and just returning the last component of it, it is possible to do the following:
>>> a = lambda p:(x:=p[0], y:=p[1], x ** 2 + y ** 2)[-1]
>>> a((3,4))
25
One should keep in mind that this kind of code will seldom be more readable or practical than having a full function. Still, there are possible uses - if there are various one-liners that would operate on this point, it could be worth to have a namedtuple, and use the assignment expression to effectively "cast" the incoming sequence to the namedtuple:
>>> from collections import namedtuple
>>> point = namedtuple("point", "x y")
>>> b = lambda s: (p:=point(*s), p.x ** 2 + p.y ** 2)[-1]

According to http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3113/ tuple unpacking are gone, and 2to3 will translate them like so:
As tuple parameters are used by lambdas because of the single
expression limitation, they must also be supported. This is done by
having the expected sequence argument bound to a single parameter and
then indexing on that parameter:
lambda (x, y): x + y
will be translated into:
lambda x_y: x_y[0] + x_y[1]
Which is quite similar to your implementation.

I don't know any good general alternatives to the Python 2 arguments unpacking behaviour. Here's a couple of suggestion that might be useful in some cases:
if you can't think of a name; use the name of the keyword parameter:
def key(p): # more specific name would be better
x, y = p
return x**2 + y**3
result = min(points, key=key)
you could see if a namedtuple makes your code more readable if the list is used in multiple places:
from collections import namedtuple
from itertools import starmap
points = [ (1,2), (2,3)]
Point = namedtuple('Point', 'x y')
points = list(starmap(Point, points))
result = min(points, key=lambda p: p.x**2 + p.y**3)

While the destructuring arguments was removed in Python3, it was not removed from comprehensions. It is possible to abuse it to obtain similar behavior in Python 3.
For example:
points = [(1,2), (2,3)]
print(min(points, key=lambda y: next(x*x + y*y for (x,y) in [y])))
In comparison with the accepted answer of using a wrapper, this solution is able to completely destructure the arguments while the wrapper only destructures the first level. That is, you can do
values = [(('A',1),'a'), (('B',0),'b')]
print(min(values, key=lambda y: next(b for ((a,b),c) in (y,))))
In comparison to the accepted answer using an unwrapper lambda:
values = [(('A',1),'a'), (('B',0),'b')]
print(min(points, key=lambda p: (lambda a,b: (lambda x,y: (y))(*a))(*p)))
Alternatively one can also use a list instead of a tuple.
values = [(('A',1),'a'), (('B',0),'b')]
print(min(points, key=lambda y: next(b for (a,b),c in [y])))
This is just to suggest that it can be done, and should not be taken as a recommendation. However, IMO, this is better than the hack of using using multiple expressions in a tuple and returning the last one.

I think the better syntax is x * x + y * y let x, y = point, let keyword should be more carefully chosen.
The double lambda is the closest version.
lambda point: (lambda x, y: x * x + y * y)(*point)
High order function helper would be useful in case we give it a proper name.
def destruct_tuple(f):
return lambda args: f(*args)
destruct_tuple(lambda x, y: x * x + y * y)

Consider whether you need to unpack the tuple in the first place:
min(points, key=lambda p: sum(x**2 for x in p))
or whether you need to supply explicit names when unpacking:
min(points, key=lambda p: abs(complex(*p)**2)

Based on Cuadue suggestion and your comment on unpacking still being present in comprehensions, you can use, using numpy.argmin :
result = points[numpy.argmin(x*x + y*y for x, y in points)]

Another option is to write it into a generator producing a tuple where the key is the first element. Tuples are compared starting from beginning to end so the tuple with the smallest first element is returned. You can then index into the result to get the value.
min((x * x + y * y, (x, y)) for x, y in points)[1]

There may be a real solution to this, using PyFunctional!
Although not currently supported, I've submitted a tuple arg unpacking feature request to support:
(
seq((1, 2), (3, 4))
.map(unpack=lambda a, b: a + b)
) # => [3, 7]

Since questions on Stack Overflow are not supposed to contain the answer in the question, nor have explicit "update" sections, I am converting OP's original "updates" to a proper answer and making it community wiki.
OP originally claimed that this solution was "extending the idea in the answer". I cannot discern which answer that meant, or which idea. The idea is functionally the same as anthony.hl's answer, but that came years later. Considering the state of answers at the time, I think this qualifies as OP's original work.)
Make a wrapper function that generalizes the process of unpacking the arguments, like so:
def star(f):
return lambda args: f(*args)
Now we can use this to transform the lambda we want to write, into one that will receive the argument properly:
min(points, key=star(lambda x,y: (x*x + y*y))
We can further clean this up by using functools.wraps:
import functools
def star(f):
#functools.wraps(f)
def f_inner(args):
return f(*args)
return f_inner

How do i write longer/complicated anonymous functions [duplicate]

I've heard it said that multiline lambdas can't be added in Python because they would clash syntactically with the other syntax constructs in Python. I was thinking about this on the bus today and realized I couldn't think of a single Python construct that multiline lambdas clash with. Given that I know the language pretty well, this surprised me.
Now, I'm sure Guido had a reason for not including multiline lambdas in the language, but out of curiosity: what's a situation where including a multiline lambda would be ambiguous? Is what I've heard true, or is there some other reason that Python doesn't allow multiline lambdas?

Guido van Rossum (the inventor of Python) answers this exact question himself in an old blog post.
Basically, he admits that it's theoretically possible, but that any proposed solution would be un-Pythonic:
"But the complexity of any proposed solution for this puzzle is immense, to me: it requires the parser (or more precisely, the lexer) to be able to switch back and forth between indent-sensitive and indent-insensitive modes, keeping a stack of previous modes and indentation level. Technically that can all be solved (there's already a stack of indentation levels that could be generalized). But none of that takes away my gut feeling that it is all an elaborate Rube Goldberg contraption."

Look at the following:
map(multilambda x:
y=x+1
return y
, [1,2,3])
Is this a lambda returning (y, [1,2,3]) (thus map only gets one parameter, resulting in an error)? Or does it return y? Or is it a syntax error, because the comma on the new line is misplaced? How would Python know what you want?
Within the parens, indentation doesn't matter to python, so you can't unambiguously work with multilines.
This is just a simple one, there's probably more examples.

This is generally very ugly (but sometimes the alternatives are even more ugly), so a workaround is to make a braces expression:
lambda: (
doFoo('abc'),
doBar(123),
doBaz())
It won't accept any assignments though, so you'll have to prepare data beforehand.
The place I found this useful is the PySide wrapper, where you sometimes have short callbacks. Writing additional member functions would be even more ugly. Normally you won't need this.
Example:
pushButtonShowDialog.clicked.connect(
lambda: (
field1.clear(),
spinBox1.setValue(0),
diag.show())

A couple of relevant links:
For a while, I was following the development of Reia, which was initially going to have Python's indentation based syntax with Ruby blocks too, all on top of Erlang. But, the designer wound up giving up on indentation sensitivity, and this post he wrote about that decision includes a discussion about problems he ran into with indentation + multi-line blocks, and an increased appreciation he gained for Guido's design issues/decisions:
http://www.unlimitednovelty.com/2009/03/indentation-sensitivity-post-mortem.html
Also, here's an interesting proposal for Ruby-style blocks in Python I ran across where Guido posts a response w/o actually shooting it down (not sure whether there has been any subsequent shoot down, though):
http://tav.espians.com/ruby-style-blocks-in-python.html

Let me present to you a glorious but terrifying hack:
import types
def _obj():
return lambda: None
def LET(bindings, body, env=None):
'''Introduce local bindings.
ex: LET(('a', 1,
'b', 2),
lambda o: [o.a, o.b])
gives: [1, 2]
Bindings down the chain can depend on
the ones above them through a lambda.
ex: LET(('a', 1,
'b', lambda o: o.a + 1),
lambda o: o.b)
gives: 2
'''
if len(bindings) == 0:
return body(env)
env = env or _obj()
k, v = bindings[:2]
if isinstance(v, types.FunctionType):
v = v(env)
setattr(env, k, v)
return LET(bindings[2:], body, env)
You can now use this LET form as such:
map(lambda x: LET(('y', x + 1,
'z', x - 1),
lambda o: o.y * o.z),
[1, 2, 3])
which gives: [0, 3, 8]

[Edit Edit] Since this question is somehow still active 12 years after being asked. I will continue the tradition of amending my answer every 4 years or so.
Firstly, the question was how does multi-line lambda clash with Python. The accepted answer shows how with a simple example. The highly rated answer I linked below some years ago answers the question of "Why is it not a part of Python"--this answer is perhaps more satisfying to those who believe that the existing examples of "clashing" are not enough to make multi-line lambda impossible to implement in Python.
In previous iterations of this answer I discussed how to implement multi-line lambda into Python as is. I've since removed that part, because it was a flurry of bad practices. You may see it in the edit history of this answer if you wish.
However the answer to "Why not?", being "because Rossum said so" can still be a source of frustration. So lets see if it could be engineered around the counter example given by user balpha:
map(lambda x:
y=x+1 # <-- this line defines the outmost indent level*
for i in range(12):
y+=12
return y
, [1,2,3])
#*By convention it is always one-indent past the 'l' in lambda
As for the return value we have that the following is non-permissible in python:
def f():
return 3
, [1,2,3]
So by the same logic, "[1,2,3]" should not be part of the return value. Let's try it this way instead:
map(lambda x:
y=x+1 # part of lambda block
for i in range(12): # part of lambda block
y+=12 # part of lambda block
return y, [1,2,3]) # part of lambda block
This one's trickier, but since the lambda block has a clearly defined beginning (the token 'lambda') yet no clear ending, I would argue anything that is on the same line as part of a lambda block is also part of the lambda block.
One might imagine some features that can identify closing parenthesis or even inference based on the number of tokens expected by the enclosing element. In general, the above expression does not seem totally impossible to parse, but it may be a bit of a challenge.
To simplify things, you could separate all characters not intended to be part of the block:
map(lambda x:
y=x+1 # part of lambda block
for i in range(12): # part of lambda block
y+=12 # part of lambda block
return y # part of lambda block
, [1,2,3]) # argument separator, second argument, and closing paren for map
Back to where we were but this time it is unambiguous, because the last line is behind the lowest indent-depth for the lambda block.
Single line lambda would be a special case (identified by the lack of an immediate newline after the color), that behaves the same as it does now.
This is not to say that it necessarily should be a part of Python--but it is a quick illustration that is perhaps is possible with some changes in the language.
[Edit] Read this answer. It explains why multi-line lambda is not a thing.
Simply put, it's unpythonic. From Guido van Rossum's blog post:
I find any solution unacceptable that embeds an indentation-based block in the middle of an expression. Since I find alternative syntax for statement grouping (e.g. braces or begin/end keywords) equally unacceptable, this pretty much makes a multi-line lambda an unsolvable puzzle.

I'm guilty of practicing this dirty hack in some of my projects which is bit simpler:
lambda args...:( expr1, expr2, expr3, ...,
exprN, returnExpr)[-1]
I hope you can find a way to stay pythonic but if you have to do it this less painful than using exec and manipulating globals.

Let me also throw in my two cents about different workarounds.
How is a simple one-line lambda different from a normal function? I can think only of lack of assignments, some loop-like constructs (for, while), try-except clauses... And that's it? We even have a ternary operator - cool! So, let's try to deal with each of these problems.
Assignments
Some guys here have rightly noted that we should take a look at lisp's let form, which allows local bindings. Actually, all the non state-changing assignments can be performed only with let. But every lisp programmer knows that let form is absolutely equivalent to call to a lambda function! This means that
(let ([x_ x] [y_ y])
(do-sth-with-x-&-y x_ y_))
is the same as
((lambda (x_ y_)
(do-sth-with-x-&-y x_ y_)) x y)
So lambdas are more than enough! Whenever we want to make a new assignment we just add another lambda and call it. Consider this example:
def f(x):
y = f1(x)
z = f2(x, y)
return y,z
A lambda version looks like:
f = lambda x: (lambda y: (y, f2(x,y)))(f1(x))
You can even make the let function, if you don't like the data being written after actions on the data. And you can even curry it (just for the sake of more parentheses :) )
let = curry(lambda args, f: f(*args))
f_lmb = lambda x: let((f1(x),), lambda y: (y, f2(x,y)))
# or:
f_lmb = lambda x: let((f1(x),))(lambda y: (y, f2(x,y)))
# even better alternative:
let = lambda *args: lambda f: f(*args)
f_lmb = lambda x: let(f1(x))(lambda y: (y, f2(x,y)))
So far so good. But what if we have to make reassignments, i.e. change state? Well, I think we can live absolutely happily without changing state as long as task in question doesn't concern loops.
Loops
While there's no direct lambda alternative for loops, I believe we can write quite generic function to fit our needs. Take a look at this fibonacci function:
def fib(n):
k = 0
fib_k, fib_k_plus_1 = 0, 1
while k < n:
k += 1
fib_k_plus_1, fib_k = fib_k_plus_1 + fib_k, fib_k_plus_1
return fib_k
Impossible in terms of lambdas, obviously. But after writing a little yet useful function we're done with that and similar cases:
def loop(first_state, condition, state_changer):
state = first_state
while condition(*state):
state = state_changer(*state)
return state
fib_lmb = lambda n:\
loop(
(0,0,1),
lambda k, fib_k, fib_k_plus_1:\
k < n,
lambda k, fib_k, fib_k_plus_1:\
(k+1, fib_k_plus_1, fib_k_plus_1 + fib_k))[1]
And of course, one should always consider using map, reduce and other higher-order functions if possible.
Try-except and other control structs
It seems like a general approach to this kind of problems is to make use of lazy evaluation, replacing code blocks with lambdas accepting no arguments:
def f(x):
try: return len(x)
except: return 0
# the same as:
def try_except_f(try_clause, except_clause):
try: return try_clause()
except: return except_clause()
f = lambda x: try_except_f(lambda: len(x), lambda: 0)
# f(-1) -> 0
# f([1,2,3]) -> 3
Of course, this is not a full alternative to try-except clause, but you can always make it more generic. Btw, with that approach you can even make if behave like function!
Summing up: it's only natural that everything mentioned feels kinda unnatural and not-so-pythonically-beautiful. Nonetheless - it works! And without any evals and other trics, so all the intellisense will work. I'm also not claiming that you shoud use this everywhere. Most often you'd better define an ordinary function. I only showed that nothing is impossible.

Let me try to tackle #balpha parsing problem. I would use parentheses around the multiline lamda. If there is no parentheses, the lambda definition is greedy. So the lambda in
map(lambda x:
y = x+1
z = x-1
y*z,
[1,2,3]))
returns a function that returns (y*z, [1,2,3])
But
map((lambda x:
y = x+1
z = x-1
y*z)
,[1,2,3]))
means
map(func, [1,2,3])
where func is the multiline lambda that return y*z. Does that work?

(For anyone still interested in the topic.)
Consider this (includes even usage of statements' return values in further statements within the "multiline" lambda, although it's ugly to the point of vomiting ;-)
>>> def foo(arg):
... result = arg * 2;
... print "foo(" + str(arg) + ") called: " + str(result);
... return result;
...
>>> f = lambda a, b, state=[]: [
... state.append(foo(a)),
... state.append(foo(b)),
... state.append(foo(state[0] + state[1])),
... state[-1]
... ][-1];
>>> f(1, 2);
foo(1) called: 2
foo(2) called: 4
foo(6) called: 12
12

Here's a more interesting implementation of multi line lambdas. It's not possible to achieve because of how python use indents as a way to structure code.
But luckily for us, indent formatting can be disabled using arrays and parenthesis.
As some already pointed out, you can write your code as such:
lambda args: (expr1, expr2,... exprN)
In theory if you're guaranteed to have evaluation from left to right it would work but you still lose values being passed from one expression to an other.
One way to achieve that which is a bit more verbose is to have
lambda args: [lambda1, lambda2, ..., lambdaN]
Where each lambda receives arguments from the previous one.
def let(*funcs):
def wrap(args):
result = args
for func in funcs:
if not isinstance(result, tuple):
result = (result,)
result = func(*result)
return result
return wrap
This method let you write something that is a bit lisp/scheme like.
So you can write things like this:
let(lambda x, y: x+y)((1, 2))
A more complex method could be use to compute the hypotenuse
lst = [(1,2), (2,3)]
result = map(let(
lambda x, y: (x**2, y**2),
lambda x, y: (x + y) ** (1/2)
), lst)
This will return a list of scalar numbers so it can be used to reduce multiple values to one.
Having that many lambda is certainly not going to be very efficient but if you're constrained it can be a good way to get something done quickly then rewrite it as an actual function later.

In Python 3.8/3.9 there is Assignment Expression, so it could be used in lambda, greatly
expanding functionality
E.g., code
#%%
x = 1
y = 2
q = list(map(lambda t: (
tx := t*x,
ty := t*y,
tx+ty
)[-1], [1, 2, 3]))
print(q)
will print [3, 6, 9]

After Python3.8, there is another method for local binding
lambda x: (
y := x + 1,
y ** 2
)[-1]
For Loop
lambda x: (
y := x ** 2,
[y := y + x for _ in range(10)],
y
)[-1]
If Branch
lambda x: (
y := x ** 2,
x > 5 and [y := y + x for _ in range(10)],
y
)[-1]
Or
lambda x: (
y := x ** 2,
[y := y + x for _ in range(10)] if x > 5 else None,
y
)[-1]
While Loop
import itertools as it
lambda x: (
l := dict(y = x ** 2),
cond := lambda: l['y'] < 100,
body := lambda: l.update(y = l['y'] + x),
*it.takewhile(lambda _: cond() and (body(), True)[-1], it.count()),
l['y']
)[-1]
Or
import itertools as it
from types import SimpleNamespace as ns
lambda x: (
l := ns(y = x ** 2),
cond := lambda: l.y < 100,
body := lambda: vars(l).update(y = l.y + x),
*it.takewhile(lambda _: cond() and (body(), True)[-1], it.count()),
l.y
)[-1]
Or
import itertools as it
lambda x: (
y := x ** 2,
*it.takewhile(lambda t: t[0],
((
pred := y < 100,
pred and (y := y + x))
for _ in it.count())),
y
)[-1]

On the subject of ugly hacks, you can always use a combination of exec and a regular function to define a multiline function like this:
f = exec('''
def mlambda(x, y):
d = y - x
return d * d
''', globals()) or mlambda
You can wrap this into a function like:
def mlambda(signature, *lines):
exec_vars = {}
exec('def mlambda' + signature + ':\n' + '\n'.join('\t' + line for line in lines), exec_vars)
return exec_vars['mlambda']
f = mlambda('(x, y)',
'd = y - x',
'return d * d')

I know it is an old question, but for the record here is a kind of a solution to the problem of multiline lambda problem in which the result of one call is consumed by another call.
I hope it is not super hacky, since it is based only on standard library functions and uses no dunder methods.
Below is a simple example in which we start with x = 3 and then in the first line we add 1 and then in the second line we add 2 and get 6 as the output.
from functools import reduce
reduce(lambda data, func: func(data), [
lambda x: x + 1,
lambda x: x + 2
], 3)
## Output: 6

I was just playing a bit to try to make a dict comprehension with reduce, and come up with this one liner hack:
In [1]: from functools import reduce
In [2]: reduce(lambda d, i: (i[0] < 7 and d.__setitem__(*i[::-1]), d)[-1], [{}, *{1:2, 3:4, 5:6, 7:8}.items()])
Out[3]: {2: 1, 4: 3, 6: 5}
I was just trying to do the same as what was done in this Javascript dict comprehension: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11068265

You can simply use slash (\) if you have multiple lines for your lambda function
Example:
mx = lambda x, y: x if x > y \
else y
print(mx(30, 20))
Output: 30

I am starting with python but coming from Javascript the most obvious way is extract the expression as a function....
Contrived example, multiply expression (x*2) is extracted as function and therefore I can use multiline:
def multiply(x):
print('I am other line')
return x*2
r = map(lambda x : multiply(x), [1, 2, 3, 4])
print(list(r))
https://repl.it/#datracka/python-lambda-function
Maybe it does not answer exactly the question if that was how to do multiline in the lambda expression itself, but in case somebody gets this thread looking how to debug the expression (like me) I think it will help

One safe method to pass any number of variables between lambda items:
print((lambda: [
locals().__setitem__("a", 1),
locals().__setitem__("b", 2),
locals().__setitem__("c", 3),
locals().get("a") + locals().get("b") + locals().get("c")
])()[-1])
Output: 6

because a lambda function is supposed to be one-lined, as its the simplest form of a function, an entrance, then return

E731 do not assign a lambda expression, use a def

I get this pep8 warning whenever I use lambda expressions. Are lambda expressions not recommended? If not why?

The recommendation in PEP-8 you are running into is:
Always use a def statement instead of an assignment statement that
binds a lambda expression directly to a name.
Yes:
def f(x): return 2*x
No:
f = lambda x: 2*x
The first form means that the name of the resulting
function object is specifically 'f' instead of the generic '<lambda>'.
This is more useful for tracebacks and string representations in
general. The use of the assignment statement eliminates the sole
benefit a lambda expression can offer over an explicit def statement
(i.e. that it can be embedded inside a larger expression)
Assigning lambdas to names basically just duplicates the functionality of def - and in general, it's best to do something a single way to avoid confusion and increase clarity.
The legitimate use case for lambda is where you want to use a function without assigning it, e.g:
sorted(players, key=lambda player: player.rank)
In general, the main argument against doing this is that def statements will result in more lines of code. My main response to that would be: yes, and that is fine. Unless you are code golfing, minimising the number of lines isn't something you should be doing: go for clear over short.

Here is the story, I had a simple lambda function which I was using twice.
a = map(lambda x : x + offset, simple_list)
b = map(lambda x : x + offset, another_simple_list)
This is just for the representation, I have faced couple of different versions of this.
Now, to keep things DRY, I start to reuse this common lambda.
f = lambda x : x + offset
a = map(f, simple_list)
b = map(f, another_simple_list)
At this point my code quality checker complains about lambda being a named function so I convert it into a function.
def f(x):
return x + offset
a = map(f, simple_list)
b = map(f, another_simple_list)
Now the checker complains that a function has to be bounded by one blank line before and after.
def f(x):
return x + offset
a = map(f, simple_list)
b = map(f, another_simple_list)
Here we have now 6 lines of code instead of original 2 lines with no increase in readability and no increase in being pythonic. At this point the code checker complains about the function not having docstrings.
In my opinion this rule better be avoided and broken when it makes sense, use your judgement.

Lattyware is absolutely right: Basically PEP-8 wants you to avoid things like
f = lambda x: 2 * x
and instead use
def f(x):
return 2 * x
However, as addressed in a recent bugreport (Aug 2014), statements such as the following are now compliant:
a.f = lambda x: 2 * x
a["f"] = lambda x: 2 * x
Since my PEP-8 checker doesn't implement this correctly yet, I turned off E731 for the time being.

I also encountered a situation in which it was even impossible to use a def(ined) function.
class SomeClass(object):
# pep-8 does not allow this
f = lambda x: x + 1 # NOQA
def not_reachable(self, x):
return x + 1
#staticmethod
def also_not_reachable(x):
return x + 1
#classmethod
def also_not_reachable(cls, x):
return x + 1
some_mapping = {
'object1': {'name': "Object 1", 'func': f},
'object2': {'name': "Object 2", 'func': some_other_func},
}
In this case, I really wanted to make a mapping which belonged to the class. Some objects in the mapping needed the same function. It would be illogical to put the a named function outside of the class.
I have not found a way to refer to a method (staticmethod, classmethod or normal) from inside the class body. SomeClass does not exist yet when the code is run. So referring to it from the class isn't possible either.

This works for me in a class, remove lambda expression and use def instead, changing this...
def set_every(self, every: int = 1, time_unit: int = TimeUnit.Day):
every_func = lambda x: "*" if x == 1 else "*/" + str(x)
if TimeUnit.has_value(time_unit):
self.month_of_year = "*"
self.day_of_month = "*" if time_unit != TimeUnit.Day else every_func(every)
self.day_of_week = "*" if time_unit != TimeUnit.Week else every_func(every)
by this...
def set_every(self, every: int = 1, time_unit: int = TimeUnit.Day):
def every_func(x: int) -> str: return "*" if x == 1 else "*/" + str(x)
if TimeUnit.has_value(time_unit):
self.month_of_year = "*"
self.day_of_month = "*" if time_unit != TimeUnit.Day else every_func(every)
self.day_of_week = "*" if time_unit != TimeUnit.Week else every_func(every)

lambda returns lambda in python

Very rarely I'll come across some code in python that uses an anonymous function which returns an anonymous function...?
Unfortunately I can't find an example on hand, but it usually takes the form like this:
g = lambda x,c: x**c lambda c: c+1
Why would someone do this? Maybe you can give an example that makes sense (I'm not sure the one I made makes any sense).
Edit: Here's an example:
swap = lambda a,x,y:(lambda f=a.__setitem__:(f(x,(a[x],a[y])),
f(y,a[x][0]),f(x,a[x][1])))()

You could use such a construct to do currying:
curry = lambda f, a: lambda x: f(a, x)
You might use it like:
>>> add = lambda x, y: x + y
>>> add5 = curry(add, 5)
>>> add5(3)
8

swap = lambda a,x,y:(lambda f=a.__setitem__:(f(x,(a[x],a[y])),
f(y,a[x][0]),f(x,a[x][1])))()
See the () at the end? The inner lambda isn't returned, its called.
The function does the equivalent of
def swap(a, x, y):
a[x] = (a[x], a[y])
a[y] = a[x][0]
a[x] = a[x][1]
But let's suppose that we want to do this in a lambda. We cannot use assignments in a lambda. However, we can call __setitem__ for the same effect.
def swap(a, x, y):
a.__setitem__(x, (a[x], a[y]))
a.__setitem__(y, a[x][0])
a.__setitem__(x, a[x][1])
But for a lambda, we can only have one expression. But since these are function calls we can wrap them up in a tuple
def swap(a, x, y):
(a.__setitem__(x, (a[x], a[y])),
a.__setitem__(y, a[x][0]),
a.__setitem__(x, a[x][1]))
However, all those __setitem__'s are getting me down, so let's factor them out:
def swap(a, x, y):
f = a.__setitem__
(f(x, (a[x], a[y])),
f(y, a[x][0]),
f(x, a[x][1]))
Dagnamit, I can't get away with adding another assignment! I know let's abuse default parameters.
def swap(a, x, y):
def inner(f = a.__setitem__):
(f(x, (a[x], a[y])),
f(y, a[x][0]),
f(x, a[x][1]))
inner()
Ok let's switch over to lambdas:
swap = lambda a, x, y: lambda f = a.__setitem__: (f(x, (a[x], a[y])), f(y, a[x][0]), f(x, a[x][1]))()
Which brings us back to the original expression (plus/minus typos)
All of this leads back to the question: Why?
The function should have been implemented as
def swap(a, x, y):
a[x],a[y] = a[y],a[x]
The original author went way out of his way to use a lambda rather then a function. It could be that he doesn't like nested function for some reason. I don't know. All I'll say is its bad code. (unless there is a mysterious justification for it.)

It can be useful for temporary placeholders. Suppose you have a decorator factory:
#call_logger(log_arguments=True, log_return=False)
def f(a, b):
pass
You can temporarily replace it with
call_logger = lambda *a, **kw: lambda f: f
It can also be useful if it indirectly returns a lambda:
import collections
collections.defaultdict(lambda: collections.defaultdict(lambda: collections.defaultdict(int)))
It's also useful for creating callable factories in the Python console.
And just because something is possible doesn't mean that you have to use it.

I did something like this just the other day to disable a test method in a unittest suite.
disable = lambda fn : lambda *args, **kwargs: None
#disable
test_method(self):
... test code that I wanted to disable ...
Easy to re-enable it later.

This can be used to pull out some common repetitive code (there are of course other ways to achieve this in python).
Maybe you're writing a a logger, and you need to prepend the level to the log string. You might write something like:
import sys
prefixer = lambda prefix: lambda message: sys.stderr.write(prefix + ":" + message + "\n")
log_error = prefixer("ERROR")
log_warning = prefixer("WARNING")
log_info = prefixer("INFO")
log_debug = prefixer("DEBUG")
log_info("An informative message")
log_error("Oh no, a fatal problem")
This program prints out
INFO:An informative message
ERROR:Oh no, a fatal problem

It is most oftenly - at least in code I come accross and that I myself write - used to "freeze" a variable with the value it has at the point the lambda function is created. Otherwise, nonlocals variable reference a variable in the scope they exist, which can lead to undesied results sometimes.
For example, if I want to create a list of ten functions, each one being a multiplier for a scalar from 0 to 9. One might be tempted to write it like this:
>>> a = [(lambda j: i * j) for i in range(10)]
>>> a[9](10)
90
Whoever, if you want to use any of the other factoried functions you get the same result:
>>> a[1](10)
90
That is because the "i" variable inside the lambda is not resolved when the lambda is created. Rather, Python keeps a reference to the "i" in the "for" statement - on the scope it was created (this reference is kept in the lambda function closure). When the lambda is executed, the variable is evaluated, and its value is the final one it had in that scope.
When one uses two nested lambdas like this:
>>> a = [(lambda k: (lambda j: k * j))(i) for i in range(10)]
The "i" variable is evaluated durint the execution of the "for" loop. Itś value is passed to "k" - and "k" is used as the non-local variable in the multiplier function we are factoring out. For each value of i, there will be a different instance of the enclosing lambda function, and a different value for the "k" variable.
So, it is possible to achieve the original intent :
>>> a = [(lambda k: (lambda j: k * j))(i) for i in range(10)]
>>> a[1](10)
10
>>> a[9](10)
90
>>>

It can be used to achieve a more continuation/trampolining style of programming,
See Continuation-passing style

Basically, with this you can modify functions instead of values
One example I stumbled with recently: To compute approximate derivatives (as functions) and use it as an input function in another place.
dx = 1/10**6
ddx = lambda f: lambda x: (f(x + dx) - f(x))/dx
f = lambda x: foo(x)
newton_method(func=ddx(f), x0=1, n=10)

recursive lambda-expressions possible?

I'm trying to write a lambda-expression that calls itself, but i can't seem to find any syntax for that, or even if it's possible.
Essentially what I wanted to transfer the following function into the following lambda expression: (I realize it's a silly application, it just adds, but I'm exploring what I can do with lambda-expressions in python)
def add(a, b):
if a <= 0:
return b
else:
return 1 + add(a - 1, b)
add = lambda a, b: [1 + add(a-1, b), b][a <= 0]
but calling the lambda form of add results in a runtime error because the maximum recursion depth is reached. Is it even possible to do this in python? Or am I just making some stupid mistake? Oh, I'm using python3.0, but I don't think that should matter?

Maybe you need a Y combinator?
Edit - make that a Z combinator (I hadn't realized that Y combinators are more for call-by-name)
Using the definition of the Z combinator from Wikipedia
>>> Z = lambda f: (lambda x: f(lambda *args: x(x)(*args)))(lambda x: f(lambda *args: x(x)(*args)))
Using this, you can then define add as a completely anonymous function (ie. no reference to its name in its definition)
>>> add = Z(lambda f: lambda a, b: b if a <= 0 else 1 + f(a - 1, b))
>>> add(1, 1)
2
>>> add(1, 5)
6

Perhaps you should try the Z combinator, where this example is from:
>>> Z = lambda f: (lambda x: f(lambda *args: x(x)(*args)))(lambda x: f(lambda *args: x(x)(*args)))
>>> fact = lambda f: lambda x: 1 if x == 0 else x * f(x-1)
>>> Z(fact)(5)
120

First of all recursive lambda expressions are completely unnecessary. As you yourself point out, for the lambda expression to call itself, it needs to have a name. But lambda expressions is nothing else than anonymous functions. So if you give the lambda expression a name, it's no longer a lambda expression, but a function.
Hence, using a lambda expression is useless, and will only confuse people. So create it with a def instead.
But yes, as you yourself discovered, lambda expressions can be recursive. Your own example is. It's in fact so fantastically recursive that you exceed the maximum recursion depth. So it's recursive alright. Your problem is that you always call add in the expression, so the recursion never stops. Don't do that. Your expression can be expressed like this instead:
add = lambda a, b: a > 0 and (1 + add(a-1, b)) or b
Which takes care of that problem. However, your first def is the correct way of doing it.

add = lambda a, b: b if a <= 0 else 1 + add(a - 1, b)

You want the Y combinator, or some other fixed point combinator.
Here's an example implementation as a Python lambda expression:
Y = lambda g: (lambda f: g(lambda arg: f(f)(arg))) (lambda f: g(lambda arg: f(f)(arg)))
Use it like so:
factorial = Y(lambda f: (lambda num: num and num * f(num - 1) or 1))
That is, you pass into Y() a single-argument function (or lambda), which receives as its argument a recursive version of itself. So the function doesn't need to know its own name, since it gets a reference to itself instead.
Note that this does get tricky for your add() function because the Y combinator only supports passing a single argument. You can get more arguments by currying -- but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. :-)

a little late ... but I just found this gem # http://metapython.blogspot.com/2010/11/recursive-lambda-functions.html
def myself (*args, **kw):
caller_frame = currentframe(1)
code = caller_frame.f_code
return FunctionType(code, caller_frame.f_globals)(*args,**kw)
print "5! = "
print (lambda x:1 if n <= 1 else myself(n-1)*n)(5)