Terry Reedy wrote: > "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
Would this apply to reading intermediate scopes without the global keyword? How would you know you aren't in inadvertently masking a name in a function you call? In most cases it will probably break something in an obvious way, but I suppose in some cases it won't be so obvious. Ron _______________________________________________ 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
