On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 7/5/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using the classic nonsense example:
> >
> > def counter(num):
> > def inc():
> > .num += 1
> > return .num
> > return inc
> >
> Would this also use ..num to refer to num in an outer scope two
> levels removed?
I don't think there's any need for that. I see '.num' as just another
way of saying "num, but don't make a new binding".
I agree with Guido that the best proposals so far are converging on
the idea that it's more Pythonic to say "don't make a new binding"
when a variable is used, than to declare "this is the scope for this
binding" ahead of time.
Of those there are two kinds:
(a) State once (anywhere in a scope, but preferably at the
beginning) that a variable is non-local. This is like
the "global" keyword works now, and this category includes:
- Change the meaning of 'global'.
- Add a new keyword 'outer' or 'nonlocal', etc.
(b) Indicate, when mentioning a variable, that the variable
is non-local. This category includes:
- Say 'global.x' or 'outer.x' instead of 'x'.
- Say '.x' instead of 'x'.
My favourite so far is to use a new keyword -- i think changing the
meaning of 'global' would be misleading. '.x' is probably my next
favourite, though i share Guido's concern about allowing both 'x'
and '.x' to refer to the same thing.
I see that 'outer' is used as an identifier in hmac.py in the
standard library and also as a variable in test_set*.py. On the
other hand 'nonlocal' does not appear anywhere in the standard
library. Thus, 'nonlocal' is the best option that i've seen so far;
it's less likely to break anything and it says exactly what it means.
I can't think of a more accurate keyword.
-- ?!ng
_______________________________________________
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
