On 10/21/05, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057501.html) > Neil Schemenauer suggested PEP 267 as an example of something that > might be easier with the AST compiler. > > As written, PEP 267 does propose a slight semantics change -- but it > might be an improvement, if it is acceptable.
No, it does not. PEP 267 suggests a way to preserve the existing semantics. You could probably come up with a much simpler approach if you agreed to change semantics. Jeremy > Today, after > > from othermod import val1 > import othermod > val2 = othermod.val2 > othermod.val3 # Just making sure it was referenced early > > othermod.val1 = "new1" > othermod.val2 = "new2" > othermod.val3 = "new3" > > print val1, val2, othermod.val3 > > The print statement will see the updated val3, but will still have > the original values for val1 and val2. > > Under PEP267, all three variables would be compiled to a slot > access in othermod, and would see the updated objects. > > In many cases, this would be a *good* thing. It might allow > reload to be rewritten to do what people expect. On the other > hand, it would be a change. Would it be an acceptable change? > > -jJ > _______________________________________________ > 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/jeremy%40alum.mit.edu > _______________________________________________ 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
