Jeremy Hylton wrote: > On 2/21/06, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On 2/21/06, Bengt Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>But to the topic, it just occurred to me that any outer scopes could be >>>given names >>>(including global namespace, but that would have the name global by default, >>>so >>>global.x would essentially mean what globals()['x'] means now, except it >>>would >>>be a name error if x didn't pre-exist when accessed via >>>namespace_name.name_in_space notation. > > Isn't this suggestion that same as Greg Ewing's?
It's not quite the same, because in my scheme the namespace statement creates a new namespace embedded in the scope where it appears, whereas Bengt's one seems to just give a name to the scope itself. I'm not really in favour of either of these -- I'd be just as happy with a simple 'outer' statement. -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | Carpe post meridiam! | Christchurch, New Zealand | (I'm not a morning person.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ 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
