> As far as I remember, Guido wasn't particularly opposed > to the idea, but the discussion fizzled out after having > failed to reach a consensus on an obviously right way > to go about it.
My apologies for bringing this debated topic again to the front-lines--that said, I think there has been good, constructive things said again and sometimes it doesn't hurt to kick up an old topic. After pouring through some of the list archive threads and reading through this thread, it seems clear to me that the community doesn't seem all that keen on fixing issue--which was my goal to ferret out. For me this is one of those things where the Pythonic thing to do is not so clear--and that mysterious, enigmatic definition of what it means to be Pythonic can be quite individual so I definitely don't want to waste my time arguing what that means. The most compelling argument for not doing anything about it is that the use cases are probably not that many--that in itself makes me less apt to push much harder--especially since my pragmatic side agrees with a lot of what has been said to this regard. IMO, Having properly nested scopes in Python in a sense made having closures a natural idiom to the language and part of its "user interface." By not allowing the name re-binding it almost seems like that "user interface" has a rough edge that is almost too easy to get cut on. This in-elegance seems very un-Pythonic to me. Anyhow, good discussion. Cheers, Almann -- Almann T. Goo [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
