Talin wrote: > I also think that it won't be a complete disaster if we do nothing at > all - there *are* existing ways to deal with this problem; there are > even some which aren't hackish and non-obvious. For example, its easy > enough to create an object which acts as an artificial scope: > > def x(): > scope = object() > scope.x = 1 > def y(): > scope.x = 2 > > To my mind, the above code looks about as elegant and efficient as most > of the proposals put forward so far, and it already works. > > How much are we really saving here by building this feature into the > language?
I don't think anyone commented on my "mutable" post, but as I mentioned in that post, if you look at the use cases for this, what most use cases really need is *mutation*, not *rebinding*. </F> _______________________________________________ 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
