"Almann T. Goo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 2/26/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alternatively, 'global' could be redefined to mean >> what we're thinking of for 'outer'. Then there would >> be no change in keywordage. >> Given the rarity of global statement usage to begin >> with, I'd say that narrows things down to something >> well within the range of acceptable breakage in 3.0. > > You read my mind--I made a reply similar to this on another branch of > this thread just minutes ago :). > > I am curious to see what the community thinks about this.
I *think* I like this better than more complicated proposals. I don't think I would ever have a problem with the intermediate scope masking the module scope. After all, if I really meant to access the current global scope from a nested function, I simply would not use that name in the intermediate scope. tjr _______________________________________________ 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
