>> What's wrong with "nonlocal"? I don't think i've seen an argument
>> against that one so far (from Talin or others).
Mike> It sounds a bit awkward to me. Also, it would be nice if the
Mike> keyword indicated which scope was operative.
Sounds awkward to me as well. Couldn't put my finger on it until seeing
Jeremy's post though. I don't think the keyword should indicate a scope.
I'd prefer it if LOAD_<WHATEVER> just percolated its way up the chain of
cells (or could be identified at compile time by inspecting the AST as I
think Guido intends) without the programmer having to name the binding
scope.
Maybe if it names the function containing the variable to bind. Nothing
static (like "up 3 levels") though.
Mike> If I've followed the discussions correctly, I think the parent
Mike> scope would be operative, so I humbly suggest "parent".
Since it might not just be in the immediate parent scope, how about
"ancestor"? <0.5 wink>
Skip
_______________________________________________
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
