Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Re-using 'global' wasn't popular because it would actually be
> *wrong* for the new semantics
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Greg Ewing wrote:
> I don't agree that it's wrong -- it's perfectly
> legitimate to regard "local" and "global" as
> relative terms, i.e. anything not local to you
> is global from your point of view.
It is possible to think of those terms in that way, but in this
context, i disagree. I don't believe this is what any programmer
means when they say "global variable".
Consider the following example:
def spam(x):
def eggs():
global x
x = x + 1
eggs()
print x
In today's Python, eggs() affects the global variable x; with the
new meaning for "global", it instead affects the x local to spam().
Here are two arguments against redefining the "global" keyword:
1. Notice that changing "global" to mean "don't create a new binding"
changes the meaning of the above code incompatibly.
2. With the new meaning for "global", what is x? Is x a "global
variable"? I just can't imagine calling it that. It doesn't
make sense to use the keyword "global" to declare something that
is clearly not a global variable.
-- ?!ng
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
