Martin Panter added the comment:
Some minor tweaks to my earlier patch:
* list comprehension → comprehension
* time it is called → time of the call
--
versions: +Python 3.6, Python 3.7 -Python 3.3, Python 3.4
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file45735/locals_doc.04.patch
Changes by Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us:
--
nosy: -ethan.furman
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17546
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Martin Panter added the comment:
I quickly scanned through the email thread from Issue 17960. I guess it makes
sense to specify that locals() can be used to directly get a class’s namespace.
Probably doesn’t hurt to say locals() is equivalent to globals() at module
level, although this seems
Martin Panter added the comment:
Here is another attempt with different words:
'''
.. note::
The dictionary returned by :func:`locals` is an accurate snapshot of the
local namespace at the time it is called. If the namespace changes after the
call, the dictionary may become out of date,
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
I mostly like Martin's suggested wording, but would also note that I filed
issue 17960 to tighten up the requirements for when we expect assigning to
locals() to work.
To save folks reading the whole referenced email, I think it would be worth
defining that
R. David Murray added the comment:
Yeah, the question of thread-safety in regards to what we are talking about
here also occurred to me. That is, the wording makes one wonder if locals is
thread safe or not. I don't see your suggested wording as making it clearer,
though.
The problem is
R. David Murray added the comment:
Your formulation is more concise, thank you.
I suggest dropping the word 'additionally'. Also, how it does would be
better phrased as how it changes, I think. (It really should be whether and
how it changes, but in deference to Anatoly's 'advanced English'
Martin Panter added the comment:
What about instead of
'''
Whether changes to one are reflected in the other after the call returns is
undefined; additionally, the dictionary may change unpredictably after the
call, and how it does is implementation-specific.
'''
substitue this wording:
'''
Ethan Furman added the comment:
Combined the second and last lines, discarded duplication.
--
nosy: +ethan.furman
versions: +Python 3.5
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file37711/issue17546.stoneleaf.01.patch
___
Python tracker
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +ncoghlan
stage: needs patch - patch review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17546
___
Changes by Florent Xicluna florent.xicl...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +flox
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17546
___
___
Python-bugs-list
R. David Murray added the comment:
Hmm. Perhaps the last sentence could be ... because changes to the local dict
propagating to the local namespace cannot be relied upon to either happen or
not happen. That would make it less redundant, since it would essentially be
referencing the previous
anatoly techtonik added the comment:
... cannot be relied upon to either happen or not happen...
IMHO this phrase is from Advanced English course.
The original included the caution against modifying it, and I think it is
valid because of the inconsistent behavior.
Perhaps it could be
13 matches
Mail list logo
