Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: update 1

Hi, thanks for the work on this proposal, I think this is at least a tip of the iceberg and a good start for the bigger question of how the stdlib should evolve.. I think that the PEP should include an idea of what should happen if existing stdlib pieces depend on this deprecated modules. For

Re: [Python-Dev] [SPAM?] Re: PEP 558: Defined semantics for locals()

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 8:38 AM Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/25/19 5:09 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > a = locals() > > b = locals() > > # now our first "snapshot" has changed > > assert "a" in a > > > To me that is a static snapshot of a dynamic environment, not a dynamic > snapshot. The

Re: [Python-Dev] [SPAM?] Re: PEP 558: Defined semantics for locals()

On 5/25/19 5:09 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2019, 07:38 Guido van Rossum > wrote: > > This looks great. > > I only have two nits with the text. > > First, why is the snapshot called a "dynamic snapshot"? What > exactly is dynamic about it?

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 558: Defined semantics for locals()

That's a good fine point that the PEP could call out, but just adding "dynamic" in front of "snapshot" everywhere doesn't tell me any of that. Given that the code calling locals() must of necessity live in the same function body (except for the special case of trace functions), I don't think that

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 558: Defined semantics for locals()

On Sat, May 25, 2019, 07:38 Guido van Rossum wrote: > This looks great. > > I only have two nits with the text. > > First, why is the snapshot called a "dynamic snapshot"? What exactly is > dynamic about it? > It's dynamic in that it can spontaneously change when certain other events happen.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: update 1

Please start a new thread if you want to continue discussing what will come after Python 3.9. On Fri., May 24, 2019, 22:45 Glenn Linderman, wrote: > On 5/24/2019 9:09 PM, Random832 wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2019, at 15:27, Steve Holden wrote: > > Besides which, it would be lovely to have a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 558: Defined semantics for locals()

On 5/25/2019 10:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: This looks great. I agree. I understand and have tried to explain normal operation multiple times. The proposed new doc looks better than anything I ever wrote. (I never even thought about locals() with tracing on.) The improved clarity

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 558: Defined semantics for locals()

This looks great. I only have two nits with the text. First, why is the snapshot called a "dynamic snapshot"? What exactly is dynamic about it? Second, you use the word "mapping" a lot. Would you mind changing that to "mapping object" in most places? Especially in the phrase "each call to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 558: Defined semantics for locals()

Hi, On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 17:28, Steve Dower wrote: > On 23May2019 0636, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > However, I think the PR does show that the proposed technique can be > > implemented without too much additional code complexity, and will > > hopefully be adaptable for all implementations that