> With "var":
>
> var a = 3
> def f():
> var b = 4
> def g():
> var c = 5
> a, b, c = 0, 1, 2 # changes outer a, outer b, and c
> g()
> f()
>
> Now i think this is a little bit weird, because the statement
> "var b = 4" in an outer scope changes the meaning of "b" in an
> inner scope. But it does have the virtue of retaining behaviour
> compatible with today's Python, while offering a way to get proper
> lexical scopes for those who want to use them.
>
> Thoughts? Other ideas?
Maybe an object, like self, for referring to enclosing scopes?
a = 3
def f():
b = 4
def g():
c = 5
outer.outer.a, outer.b, c = 0, 1, 2 # changes outer a,
outer b, and c
g()
f()
Chaining the keyword looks a little weird, but it is not often that
you have to refer to variables in the enclosing scope of the enclosing
scope. I have often wanted something similar to that for global
variables, instead of the global declaration:
cache = None
def init():
if not global.cache:
global.cache = init_cache()
--
mvh Björn
_______________________________________________
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
