On 5/25/2019 10:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
This looks great.
I agree. I understand and have tried to explain normal operation
multiple times. The proposed new doc looks better than anything I ever
wrote. (I never even thought about locals() with tracing on.) The
improved clarity well justifies the increased space.
I only have two nits with the text.
First, why is the snapshot called a "dynamic snapshot"? What exactly is
dynamic about it?
Good catch. 'snapshot' is from "At function scope (including for
generators and coroutines), [locals()] returns a dynamic snapshot of the
function's local variables and any nonlocal cell references."
'Dynamic' could be misunderstood to mean the function locals() snapshot
always tracks the underlying function namespace. The point of using the
'snapshot' metaphor is that it does not.
The snapshot is 'dynamic' in that it can be changed, but the same is
true of real photos. But just as with real photos, changing the
snapshot does not change the reality it represents (as explained in the
next proposed sentence). The 'snapshot' metaphor does not need
'dynamic' and I think it works better without it.
Second, you use the word "mapping" a lot. Would you mind changing that
to "mapping object" in most places? Especially in the phrase "each call
to ``locals()`` returns the *same* mapping". To me, without the word
"object" added, this *could* be interpreted as "a dict with the same
key/value pairs" (since "mapping" is also an abstract mathematical
concept describing anything that maps keys to values).
Agreed also.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
