On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 8:33 PM Alexis Masson <a.masson...@ntymail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:13 AM Alexis Masson <a.masson...@ntymail.com>
> <a.masson...@ntymail.com> wrote:
>
> This, in addition with locals().update(_), feels much better to me.
> Furthermore, it would allow other string-like classes, such as bytes or
> bytearray, to use that feature.
>
>
> But locals().update() isn't a supported operation, except in the
> situation where locals() is globals(). So what you're suggesting would
> work fine in the REPL but not in any production usage.
>
> ChrisA
>
> That surprises me. I put a quick test to check :
>
> def f() :
> print(locals())
> locals().update(dict(a=3))
> print(locals())
>
> f()
>
> prints :
>
> ================= RESTART: ****/test.py ================
> {}
> {'a': 3}
> >>>
>
> So maybe the specs don't force it, but under the current implementation,
> it seems to work.
>
No it doesn't, try `print(a)`.
> I agree that it's bad practice anyway; a correct solution to the original
> question might surely involve something akin to :for key, value in
> parsed.items() :
>
> for key, value in parsed.items() :
>
> exec(f"{key} = {value}")
>
> This has the same problem for the same underlying reasons, it won't work
in a function either.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/MYQCQAJSMKZYCO5V6QHSEHEXUQWBW3T3/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
