On 2/7/07, Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
frame = findFrame(thread_id, frame_id)
exec '%s=%s' % (attr, expression) in frame.f_globals, frame.f_locals
The locals of a function are actually stored in an array.
When you access them as a dict using locals(), all you
Fabio Zadrozny schrieb:
Would it be ok to add a feature request for that?
Nobody can stop you, anyway :-)
Seriously, a feature request is likely to sit there
forever. If you would come up with an actual patch,
that would be a different thing. You'll likely answer
your other question in the
On 2/7/07, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, a feature request is likely to sit there
forever. If you would come up with an actual patch,
that would be a different thing. You'll likely answer
your other question in the process of developing a
patch, too.
Ok... I've added
At 08:11 AM 2/7/2007 -0200, Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
Would it be ok to add a feature request for that? I initially thought it
was completely read-only, but I find it strange that it affects the
topmost frame correctly (so, it seems that even though I get a copy, when
I alter that copy on the
Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
Would it be ok to add a feature request for that?
It seems a reasonable thing to suggest. Instead of
a copy, locals() could return a mapping object that
is a view of the underlying array. The only limitation
then would be that you couldn't add new keys.
I initially
At 12:06 PM 2/8/2007 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
That's because the topmost frame has a module's dict
as its locals, so in that case you are modifying them
directly. It's only code compiled as the body of a
function that uses an array for locals.
By topmost, he means the frame that was interrupted
