On 2018-05-01 02:52, Tim Peters wrote:
[MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com>]
> ...
> The intention is that only the specified names are local.
>
> After all, what's the point of specifying names after the 'local' if _any_
> binding in the local scope was local?
Don't look at me ;-) In the absence of use cases, I don't know which
problem(s) you're trying to solve. All the use cases I've looked at
are adequately addressed by having some spelling of "local:" change
nothing at all about Python's current scope rules. If you have uses
in mind that require more than just that, I'd need to see them.
>> ...
>> If you agree that makes the feature probably unusable, you don't get
>> off the hook by saying "no, unlike current Python scopes, binding
>> sites have nothing to do with what's local to a new lexical scope
>> introduced by 'local:'". The same question raised in the example
>> above doesn't go away: in which scope(s) are 'r1' and 'r2' to be
>> bound?
> Any binding that's not specified as local is bound in the parent scope:
Reverse-engineering the example following, is this a fair way of
making that more precise?
Given a binding-target name N in scope S, N is bound in scope T, where
T is the closest-containing scope (which may be S itself) for which T
is either
1. established by a "local:" block that declares name N
or
2. not established by a "local: block
By "parent scope" I meant the function or global scope, a scope that's
not a "local:" scope. I couldn't think of a good name for it.
[snip]
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
