On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Fri, 03 May 2013 12:43:41 +1000 > Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On 03/05/13 11:29, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> > An exchange in one of the enum threads prompted me to write down >> > something I've occasionally thought about regarding locals(): it is >> > currently severely underspecified, and I'd like to make the current >> > CPython behaviour part of the language/library specification. (We >> > recently found a bug in the interaction between the __prepare__ method >> > and lexical closures that was indirectly related to this >> > underspecification) >> >> Fixing the underspecification is good. Enshrining a limitation as the >> one correct way, not so good. > > I have to say, I agree with Steven here. Mutating locals() is currently > an implementation detail, and it should IMHO stay that way. Only > reading a non-mutated locals() should be well-defined. > > Regards > > Antoine.
Like it or not, people rely on this behavior. I don't think CPython (or PyPy) can actually afford to change it. If so, documenting it sounds like a better idea than leaving it undocumented only known to the "inner shrine" Cheers, fijal _______________________________________________ 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