The changes to the docs will definitely help in understanding why this behaves as it does. I would like like to take one last stab though at justifying why this behaviour isn't correct - will leave it alone if these arguments don't stack up :) Appreciate the input and discussion.
Terry Jan Reedy wrote > You are expecting that it run as a function namespace (with post 2.2 > nesting), when it is not a function. Why is that any better? Because a class namespace (as I see it) was implemented to treat a specific situation - i.e. that functions in classes cannot see class variables. exec() is a far more generic instrument that has no such explicit requirement - i.e. it feels like hijacking an edge case to meet a requirement that doesn't exist. However 'all locals in an enclosing scope are made available in the function namespace' is generally understood as python's generic closure implementation, and would match more effectively the generic nature of the exec() statement. A litmus test for this sort of thing - if you polled 100 knowledgeable python devs who hadn't encountered this problem or this thread and asked if they would expect exec() to run as a class or function namespace, I think you'd struggle to get 1 of them to expect a class namespace. Functions are the more generic construct, and thus more appropriate for the generic nature of exec() (IMHO). It would appear that the only actual requirement not to make locals in an enclosing scope available in a nested function scope is for a class. The situation we are discussing seems have created a similar requirement for exec(), but with no reason. > In original Python, the snippet would have given an error whether you > thought of it as being in a class or function context, which is how > anyone who knew Python then would have expected. Consistency is not a bug. > When nested function namespaces were introduced, the behavior of exec > was left unchanged. Backward compatibility is not a bug. Generally, most other behaviour did change - locals in enclosing scopes *did* become available in the nested function namespace, which was not backward compatible. Why is a special case made to retain consistency and backward compatibility for code run using exec()? It's all python code. Inconsistent backward compatibility might be considered a bug. Cheers, Colin _______________________________________________ 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
