Tim Peters wrote:
> Scheme has no loops in Python's sense --
> things like "do" are shorthand for expressing stylized recursion
But it does have foreach and map, which are the
moral equivalent of Python's for-loops and list
comprehensions. The body is a lambda which takes
the loop variable as a parameter, thus providing
the extra level of scope. Recursion isn't needed.
> When people talk about giving a Python for-loop vrbl its own scope,
> they generally don't mean a new scope on _each iteration_,
But that's exactly what you *do* need in order for
a for-loop with a lambda in it to behave intuitively.
If that's not what people mean, it's because they
don't fully understand what they really mean to
mean. :-)
BTW, I'm not suggesting that a new stack frame
gets allocated for every iteration -- all you need
is a cell.
> about the same as creating a nested block with
> its own autos in C.
Analogies with C aren't very helpful here, because
it doesn't have closures, so it's only a matter of
visibility, not lifetime.
> creating a new scope on each iteration
> sounds hard to explain in Python.
But is it harder to explain than the reason someone's
loop-with-a-lambda doesn't do what they expect?
BTW, I wouldn't explain it by saying it creates a new
scope, I'd say it creates a new binding on each
iteration, or something like that.
In my earlier proposal, you would actually say that
explicitly, with something like
for new i in range(10):
...
> Abusing the default-argument machinery to capture current bindings is
> never necessary, and _is_ abuse.
But it's abuse that still happens, because although
scoping has been fixed, other parts of the story are
still missing.
--
Greg
_______________________________________________
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
