> (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 want the specialness in the called function.
I think there are several problems with this. First, it looks difficult to provide semantics that cover all the corners for the blending of two namespaces. What happens to names that have a different meaning in each scope? (E.g. 'self' when calling a method of another object; or any other name clash.) Are the globals also blended? How? Second, this construct only makes sense for all callables; you seem to want to apply it for function (and I suppose methods, whether bound or not), but it makes no sense when the callable is implemented as a C function, or is a class, or an object with a __call__ method. Third, I expect that if we solve the first two problems, we'll still find that for an efficient implementation we need to modify the bytecode of the called function. If you really want to pursue this idea beyond complaining "nobody listens to me" (which isn't true BTW), I suggest that you try to define *exactly* how you think it should work. Try to make sure that it can be used in a "statement context" as well as in an "expression context". You don't need to come up with a working implementation, but you should be able to convince me (or Raymond H :-) that it *can* be implemented, and that the performance will be reasonable, and that it won't affect performance when not used, etc. If you think that's beyond you, then perhaps you should accept "no" as the only answer you're gonna get. Because I personally strongly suspect that it won't work, so the burden of "proof", so to speak, is on you. > (3) Add macros. We still have to figure out how to limit their obfuscation. > Attempts to detail that goal seem to get sidetracked. No, the problem is not how to limit the obfuscation. The problem is the same as for (2), only more so: nobody has given even a *remotely* plausible mechanism for how exactly you would get code executed at compile time. You might want to look at Boo, a Python-inspired language that translates to C#. They have something they call syntactic macros: http://boo.codehaus.org/Syntactic+Macros . -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
