"Michael Urman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally expect that while there is a theoretical clash between > variable names in nested scopes, that's already a poor coding > decision. The module level globals should not unintentionally collide > with function-local non-local access. Thus reusing the global keyword > is not a practical limitation.
Just saying that they shouldn't be colliding doesn't mean that they won't. I've seen horrendous code from some otherwise smart people where locals shadow globals, even in closures. I don't have a link for you because I've tried to block out the experience. However, in my opinion, relying on good coding practices (never shadow variables) to guarantee correctness of the use of the global keyword in Python seems to me to be silly. I hope we can all at least agree that *requiring* good coding practices to make a feature work may be a bit more anal retentive than we want Python to be. While I personally don't want the feature in the first place, if I'm going to be seeing it in code, I would very much rather that a second keyword were introduced. If only because then I wouldn't tear out my hair trying to figure out whether a variable was really in the module globals, or in just another containing scope. - Josiah _______________________________________________ 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
