Greg Ewing wrote: > Ka-Ping Yee wrote: >> Before it is reasonable to change the meaning of "global", we would >> need to have coherent answers to these questions: >> >> 1. What is the global namespace? > > Under the proposal, there is no such thing as > "the" global namespace, so the question is > meaningless. > > There's no such thing now, either -- there > are just (multiple) module-level namespaces.
I think that the argument that "there's no such thing as a global namespace, either now or in the future" are using an overly pedantic definition of the word "global". In Python "global" means, and has always meant, the namespace of the current module. It is the namespace that is "outside of any function definition", and that is true regardless of which module we are talking about. It is a "special" namespace because it has different semantics than the namespaces that are defined within a function scope. You can't just hand-wave this away - the 'global' namespace is far too important and useful to be just dismissed out of hand. I think the confusion stems from the fact that in many contexts, the word 'global' is a synonym for 'universal'. However, there's more than one planet in the universe...and no one is arguing that global variables in Python are in any way 'universal' variables. -- 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
