[Python-Dev] Re: anonymous blocks vs scope-collapse

2005-04-26 Thread Jim Jewett
(2) Add a way to say Make this function I'm calling use *my* locals and globals. This seems to meet all the agreed-upon-as-good use cases, but there is disagreement over how to sensibly write it. The calling function is the place that could get surprised, but people who want thunks seem to

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: anonymous blocks vs scope-collapse

2005-04-26 Thread Paul Moore
On 4/26/05, Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure I understand this. The preferred way would be to just stick the keyword before the call. Using 'collapse', it would look like: def foo(b): c=a def bar(): a=a1 collapse foo(b1) print b,

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: anonymous blocks vs scope-collapse

2005-04-26 Thread Guido van Rossum
[Jim Jewett] (2) Add a way to say Make this function I'm calling use *my* locals and globals. This seems to meet all the agreed-upon-as-good use cases, but there is disagreement over how to sensibly write it. The calling function is the place that could get surprised, but people who

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: anonymous blocks vs scope-collapse

2005-04-26 Thread Guido van Rossum
[Paul Moore] *YUK* I spent a long time staring at this and wondering where did b come from? You'd have to come up with a very compelling use case to get me to like this. I couldn't have said it better. I said it longer though. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page:

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: anonymous blocks vs scope-collapse

2005-04-26 Thread Greg Ewing
I don't think this proposal has any chance as long as it's dynamically scoped. It mightn't be so bad if it were lexically scoped, i.e. a special way of defining a function so that it shares the lexically enclosing scope. This would be implementable, since the compiler has all the necessary