Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Talin wrote: > >> One thing I don't understand in this discussion of re-purposing the >> 'global' keyword is how you handle the case of an inner function that >> *creates* a global. >> >> Right now, you can create a global variable from within a scope, even if >> that variable hasn't been declared yet: >> >> def foo(): >> global x >> x = 1 >> >> foo() >> print x >> >> However, if 'global' is simply a synonym for 'nonlocal', then how does >> it know *which* scope to create the variable in? > > since what's a free variable and not is determined by static analysis, > and free variables are "owned" by the innermost scope they're used in, > I'm not sure why you even asking that question.
Right now, 'global' allows you to create a global variable from within a function, even if that global does not yet exist: >>> def foo(): ... global x ... x = 1 ... >>> foo() >>> print x 1 If you change the behavior of 'global' to be the same as 'nonlocal' as has been proposed, then this effectively becomes impossible - you can no longer set any global that hasn't already been pre-declared. -- Talin _______________________________________________ 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
