On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, <random...@fastmail.us> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015, at 11:55, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Ah, that makes sense. It's writing into the dict that is created and >>> > returned by locals(), but not actually updating the frame locals which >>> > are the source of truth. >>> >>> Yeah... but it only makes sense to people who understand the >>> implementation. It's certainly not a logical and sane behaviour that >>> would be worth documenting and using. >> >> What else would you document? Reading from them is a reasonable thing to >> do, and works. Writing to them is a reasonable thing to want to do, but >> won't work, so you need to document that it doesn't work. > > Documenting that "it doesn't work" seems fine. Documenting the > specific behaviour (that it gives you a sort of "shadow" locals, into > which you can write, but which won't persist past the execution of > that block of code) seems pointless. Especially since this behaviour > is implementation-dependent anyway.
It's documented in the standard library docs: https://docs.python.org/3.4/library/functions.html#exec I think that's probably sufficient. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
