On 8 July 2013 12:54, Neil Cerutti <ne...@norwich.edu> wrote: > On 2013-07-07, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:24:43 +0000, Neil Cerutti wrote: >> >>> for x in range(4): >>> print(x) >>> print(x) # Vader NOoooooOOOOOO!!! >> >> That loops do *not* introduce a new scope is a feature, not a bug. It is >> *really* useful to be able to use the value of x after the loop has >> finished. > > I don't buy necessarily buy that it's "*really*" useful
Just take "really" to mean "like, I'm totz not lying". > but I do > like introducing new names in (not really the scope of) > if/elif/else and for statement blocks. > > z = record["Zip"] > if int(z) > 99999: > zip_code = z[:-4].rjust(5, "0") > zip4 = z[-4:] > else: > zip_code = z.rjust(5, "0") > zip4 = "" I'd probably break down and cry if "if"s introduced a new scope in Pythons before the "nonlocal" keyword (assuming current Python semantics where "=" defaults to only the inner-most scope). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
