Of course it does.

    $ echo "
    > powers_of_x = [lambda x: x^i for i in range(10)]
    > [f(2) for f in powers_of_x]
    > " > test.py
    $ pylint test.py
    ...
    test.py:2:27: W0640: Cell variable i defined in loop (cell-var-from-loop)
    ...

When concerns are raised about JS, people are quick to answer you are not supposed to use it without modern tooling (Webpack + babel + typescript + eslint + lowdash...), although many devs still do.

Now, I use and teach a lot of JS, and I enjoy many of its modern features. I especially like the object destructuring, it's even better than Python's unpacking.

But objectively, you can get a very decent experience in Python without any kind of tooling. And yet, there is a lot of it if you want to up your game: pylint, black, mypy, jedi, pytest, poetry, etc.

Even if you got the binding right, your powers of 2 would be shot down for being unpythonic anyway due to lambdas being shunned when there are cleaner ways to write things.

powers_of_x makes no sense as a variable name for a list of functions that you have to call in order with the same number to actually get the powers of that number. I get that it’s just a contrived example, but most can be turned into someone more apparent to the reader.

    def powers_of_x(x, limit=10):
        for i in range(limit):
            yield x^i