Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[MRAB] >> There's another question that hasn't been asked yet: what should locals() >> and globals() return? [Tim, "globals()" is obvious, "locals()" can be surprising now] > ... And here recording the results of some code spelunking Dicts don't really have anything to do with how locals are

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Steven D'Aprano wrote: y = 1 def func(): x = 2 return x+y Here, there's a local environment as well as an implicit global one. Surely we don't want to call this a closure? Python probably isn't the best choice of language for the point you're making, because even top-level functions

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[MRAB] >>> Would/should it be possible to inject a name into a local scope? You can't >>> inject into a function scope, and names in a function scope can be >>> determined statically (they are allocated slots), so could the same kind of >>> thing be done for names in a local scope? ... [Steven

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[MRAB] >>> Imagine renaming the specified names that are declared 'local' >>> throughout the nested portion: >>> >>> def f(): >>> a = 10 >>> local local_a: >>> def showa(): >>> print("a is", local_a) >>> showa() # Raises NameError in showa because nothing bound

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-05-01 19:12, Tim Peters wrote: [MRAB] > Imagine renaming the specified names that are declared 'local' throughout > the nested portion: > > def f(): > a = 10 > local local_a: > def showa(): > print("a is", local_a) > showa() # Raises NameError in showa

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[MRAB] > By "inject" I mean putting a name into a namespace: > > import my_module > my_module.foo = 'FOO' > > You can't insert a name into a function's body to make a new local variable. So you do mean at runtime, I think. Then as before, you can do that with module and the builtin

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-05-01 16:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:52:13PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > Would/should it be possible to inject a name into a local scope? You can't > inject into a function scope, and names in a function scope can be > determined statically (they are allocated

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 09:26:09PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >So what was the closure? If the surrounding function was still running, > >there was no need to capture the running environment in a closure? > > You seem to be interpreting the word "closure" a bit >

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-05-01 04:40, Tim Peters wrote: [MRAB] >> Any binding that's not specified as local is bound in the parent scope: [Tim] > Reverse-engineering the example following, is this a fair way of > making that more precise? > > Given a binding-target name N in scope S, N is bound in scope T,

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-05-01 02:52, Tim Peters wrote: [MRAB ] > ... > The intention is that only the specified names are local. > > After all, what's the point of specifying names after the 'local' if _any_ > binding in the local scope was local? Don't look at me ;-) In the

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim] > ... > Here's an example where I don't know what the consequences of "the > rules" should be: > > def f(): > a = 10 > local a: > def showa(): > print("a is", a) > showa() # 10 > a = 20 > showa() # 20 > a = 30 > showa() # 10 > >

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:52:13PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > > Would/should it be possible to inject a name into a local scope? You can't > > inject into a function scope, and names in a function scope can be > > determined statically (they are allocated slots), so could the same kind of > >

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Steven D'Aprano wrote: So what was the closure? If the surrounding function was still running, there was no need to capture the running environment in a closure? You seem to be interpreting the word "closure" a bit differently from most people. It doesn't imply anything about whether a

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 06:06:06PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >Pascal, for example, had lexical scoping back in the 1970s, but > >no closures. > > Well, it kind of had a limited form of closure. You could pass > a procedure or function *in* to another procedure or

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Steven D'Aprano wrote: Pascal, for example, had lexical scoping back in the 1970s, but no closures. Well, it kind of had a limited form of closure. You could pass a procedure or function *in* to another procedure or function as a parameter, but there was no way to return one or pass it out in

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[MRAB] >> Any binding that's not specified as local is bound in the parent scope: [Tim] > Reverse-engineering the example following, is this a fair way of > making that more precise? > > Given a binding-target name N in scope S, N is bound in scope T, where > T is the closest-containing scope

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[MRAB ] > ... > The intention is that only the specified names are local. > > After all, what's the point of specifying names after the 'local' if _any_ > binding in the local scope was local? Don't look at me ;-) In the absence of use cases, I don't know which

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Tim Peters writes: > Meaning "wonderfully clear" to the compiler, not necessarily to you > ;-) Is the compiler African or European (perhaps even Dutch)? ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-30 21:41, Tim Peters wrote: [MRAB ] > I think it should be lexically scoped. That's certainly arguable, but that's why I like real-code driven design: abstract arguments never end, and often yield a dubious in-real-life outcome after one side is worn out

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[MRAB ] > I think it should be lexically scoped. That's certainly arguable, but that's why I like real-code driven design: abstract arguments never end, and often yield a dubious in-real-life outcome after one side is worn out and the other side "wins" by attrition

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim, still trying to define `iseven` in one statement] > even = (lambda n: n == 0 or odd(n-1)) > odd = (lambda n: False if n == 0 else even(n-1)) > iseven = lambda n: even(n) ... > [and the last attempt failed because a LOAD_GLOBAL was generated >instead of a more-general

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-30 03:49, Tim Peters wrote: [Soni L. ] That ain't shadow. That is dynamic scoping. I don't believe either term is technically accurate, but don't really care. Shadowing is something different: def f(): a = 42 def g(): print(a) local a:

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 01:36:31PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: [...] > > While I started off with Python 1.5, I wasn't part of the discussions > > about nested scopes. But I'm astonished that you say that nested scopes > > were controversial. *Closures* I would completely believe, but mere > >

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim, on differences among Scheme-ish `let`, `let*`, `letrec` binding] > ... > > You can play, if you like, with trying to define the `iseven` lambda > here in one line by nesting lambdas to define `even` and `odd` as > default arguments: > > even = (lambda n: n == 0 or odd(n-1)) > odd =

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:20:52PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > [Tim] > >> Enormously harder to implement than binding expressions, and the > >> latter (to my eyes) capture many high-value use cases "good enough". > > [Steven D'Aprano ] > > And yet you're suggesting an

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

I really liked the syntax that mimicked lambda even if I find it verbose : a = local x=1, y=2: x + y + 3 Even if I still prefer the postfix syntax : a = x + 3 where x = 2 About scheme "let" vs "let*", the paralel in Python is : a, b, c = 5, a+1, 2 # let syntax a = 5; b = a+1; c = 2 # let*

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Soni L. ] > That ain't shadow. That is dynamic scoping. I don't believe either term is technically accurate, but don't really care. > Shadowing is something different: > > def f(): > a = 42 > def g(): > print(a) > local a: > a = 43 >

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 9:28 PM, Tim Peters wrote: > [David Mertz ] > > Ooops. My proof [of] anti-concept has a flaw. It only "shadows" names > that > > already exist. Presumably that's the wrong idea, but it's easy enough to > > change if desired. > >

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[David Mertz ] > Ooops. My proof on anti-concept has a flaw. It only "shadows" names that > already exist. Presumably that's the wrong idea, but it's easy enough to > change if desired. Even in the very early days when Python's runtime was more relentlessly simple-minded than

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 04/29/2018 01:20 PM, Tim Peters wrote: So, e.g., """ a = 42 def showa(): print(a) def run(): global a local a: # assuming this existed a = 43 showa() showa() """ would print 43 and then 42. Which makes "local a:" sound senseless on the face of it

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Ooops. My proof on anti-concept has a flaw. It only "shadows" names that already exist. Presumably that's the wrong idea, but it's easy enough to change if desired. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 29 April 2018 at 21:20, Tim Peters

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 29 April 2018 at 21:20, Tim Peters wrote: > As covered most recently in an exchange with Tim Delaney, best I can > tell absolutely nobody has wanted that. By "sublocal scope" they > don't mean a full-fledged new scope at all, but a kind of limited > "shadowing" of a

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:45 AM, Tim Peters wrote: > [Chris Angelico ] >> So maybe the effective semantics should be: >> >> >>> (lambda a=3: (lambda b=a+1: (a, b))())() >> (3, 4) > > Almost, but by that point the idea that this is already "easily > spelled"

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim] Then `c` is 12, but `a` is still 1 and `b` is still 2. Same thing in the end: c = local(a=3, b=4, a*b) [Nikolaus Rath ] >>> I think this can be done already with slighly different syntax: >>> >>> c = (lambda a=3, b=4: a*b)() >>> >>> The trailing ()

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

This doesn't address the fact no one actually needs it. But if we WANTED a sublocal() context manager, we could spell it something like this: In [42]: @contextmanager ...: def sublocal(**kws): ...: _locals = locals().copy() ...: _globals = globals().copy() ...: for k,

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Mikhail V wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Tim Peters wrote: > >> Time to note another subtlety: people don't _really_ want "a new >> scope" in Python. If they did, then _every_ name appearing in a > If

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Ethan Furman ] > If we need a sublocal scope, I think the most Pythonic* route to have it > would be: > > with sublocal(): > blah blah > > which would act just like local/global does now: > > - any assignment creates a new variable > - unless that variable

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:55 AM, Tim Peters wrote: > [Tim] >>> Then `c` is 12, but `a` is still 1 and `b` is still 2. Same thing in the >>> end: >>> >>> c = local(a=3, b=4, a*b) > > [Nikolaus Rath ] >> I think this can be done already with slighly

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim] >> Then `c` is 12, but `a` is still 1 and `b` is still 2. Same thing in the >> end: >> >> c = local(a=3, b=4, a*b) [Nikolaus Rath ] > I think this can be done already with slighly different syntax: > > c = (lambda a=3, b=4: a*b)() > > The trailing () is a little ugly,

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 04/28/2018 10:16 AM, Tim Peters wrote: ... but do realize that since PEP 572 dropped any notion of sublocal scopes, that recurring issue remains wholly unaddressed regardless. If we need a sublocal scope, I think the most Pythonic* route to have it would be: with sublocal():

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-29 04:17 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: On Apr 27 2018, Tim Peters wrote: Then `c` is 12, but `a` is still 1 and `b` is still 2. Same thing in the end: c = local(a=3, b=4, a*b) I think this can be done already with slighly

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Apr 27 2018, Tim Peters wrote: > Then `c` is 12, but `a` is still 1 and `b` is still 2. Same thing in the end: > > c = local(a=3, b=4, a*b) I think this can be done already with slighly different syntax: c = (lambda a=3, b=4: a*b)() The

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-29 18:01, Tim Peters wrote: [Tim] >> ... >> This is the kind of code about which there have been background >> complaints "forever": >> >> m1 = regexp1.match(line) >> m2 = regexp2.match(iine) >> if m1 and m2: >> do all sorts of stuff with m1 and/or m2, >>

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

2018-04-29 17:52 GMT+03:00 MRAB : > > >> How about these: > > local m1, m2: > m1 = regexp1.match(line) > m2 = regexp2.match(line): > if m1 and m2: > ... > Is it possible to do the same thing, but with the help of `with`

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 04/27/2018 07:37 PM, Tim Peters wrote: Idea: introduce a "local" pseudo-function to capture the idea of initialized names with limited scope. Note: the thing I'm most interested in isn't debates, but in whether this would be of real use in real code. I keep going back and forth on the

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim] >> ... >> This is the kind of code about which there have been background >> complaints "forever": >> >> m1 = regexp1.match(line) >> m2 = regexp2.match(iine) >> if m1 and m2: >> do all sorts of stuff with m1 and/or m2, >> including perhaps modifying local

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Tim Peters wrote: > > """ > Time to note another subtlety: people don't _really_ want "a new > scope" in Python. If they did, then _every_ name appearing in a > binding context (assignment statement target, `for` target, ...) for > the

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-29 07:57, Tim Peters wrote: [Tim Delaney ] My big concern here involves the: if local(m = re.match(regexp, line)): print(m.group(0)) example. The entire block needs to be implicitly local for that to work - what happens if I assign a new name in

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim Delaney ] >>> My big concern here involves the: >>> >>> if local(m = re.match(regexp, line)): >>> print(m.group(0)) >>> >>> example. The entire block needs to be implicitly local for that to work >>> - >>> what happens if I assign a new name in that block?

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Tim] Peters wrote: >> The points to using function-call-like syntax were already covered >> ("nothing syntactically new to learn there", [Greg Ewing] [> The trouble is that one usually expects "nothing syntactically > new" to imply "nothing semantically new" as well, which is very > far from the

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Tim Peters wrote: (ABC had no lexical scoping either - nor, if I recall correctly, even textual nesting of its flavor of functions). If Python hadn't allowed textual nesting either, folks might have been content to leave it that way. But having textual nesting without lexical scoping was just

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 at 10:30, Tim Peters wrote: > [Tim Delaney ] > > My big concern here involves the: > > > ​​ > > if local(m = re.match(regexp, line)): > > print(m.group(0)) > > > > example. The entire block needs to be implicitly local

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Tim Peters wrote: The points to using function-call-like syntax were already covered ("nothing syntactically new to learn there", The trouble is that one usually expects "nothing syntactically new" to imply "nothing semantically new" as well, which is very far from the case here. So I think

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 28/04/2018 04:34, Yury Selivanov wrote: > Hi Tim, > > This is interesting. Even "as is" I prefer this to PEP 572. Below are some > comments and a slightly different idea inspired by yours (sorry!) > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:41 PM Tim Peters wrote: > [..] >> As an

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim] >> Enormously harder to implement than binding expressions, and the >> latter (to my eyes) capture many high-value use cases "good enough". [Steven D'Aprano ] > And yet you're suggesting an alternative which is harder and more > confusing. I am? I said at the start

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:16:16PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: >> [Steven D'Aprano ] >> > Chris' PEP 572 started off with the concept that binding expressions >> > would create a "sub-local" scope,

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

I'm pretty sure the debate about braces defining scope in Python has long-since ended... -- Ryan (ライアン) Yoko Shimomura, ryo (supercell/EGOIST), Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else https://refi64.com/ On April 28, 2018 9:37:57 PM Ken Hilton wrote: > local { m =

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:16:16PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > [Steven D'Aprano ] > > Chris' PEP 572 started off with the concept that binding expressions > > would create a "sub-local" scope, below function locals. After some > > debate on Python-Ideas, Chris, Nick and Guido

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

> local { m = re.match(regexp, line) >if m: >print(m.group(0)) > } Or how about making "local" a pseudo-statement of sorts? local (m=re.match(exp, string)) { if m: print(m.group(0)) } The grammar would be as follows: local_stmt

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

To all of the following, I was talking about the syntax. Which includes that all existing Python-aware editors and IDEs already know how to format it intelligibly. It would be nice if they also colored "local" (or "let") as a keyword, though. For the rest, of course I'm already aware of the

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Tim Peters wrote: To the compiler, it's approximately nothing like "a function call". It's nothing like a function call to the user, either, except in the most superficial of ways. - The explicit parentheses make it impossible to misunderstand where the expression begins or ends. Except

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

let[x](EXPR) x == EXPR let[x](a=1) x == 1 let[x](a=1, EXPR) x == EXPR let[x, y](a=1, EXPR) x == 1 y == EXPR let[x, y](a=1, b=2, EXPR) x == 2 y == EXPR z = let[x, y](a=1, EXPR) x == 1 y == EXPR z == (1, EXPR) Anybody seeing how the above might be useful, and address some of the concerns I've

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Tim Delaney ] > My big concern here involves the: > > if local(m = re.match(regexp, line)): > print(m.group(0)) > > example. The entire block needs to be implicitly local for that to work - > what happens if I assign a new name in that block? I really don't know

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 06:20:14AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Ed Kellett wrote: > > What if the names persist until the end of the statement? [...] > Oh, you mean exactly like PEP 572 used to advocate for? :) Indeed. It was a bad

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

​​ On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 at 12:41, Tim Peters wrote: My big concern here involves the: ​​if local(m = re.match(regexp, line)): print(m.group(0)) example. The entire block needs to be implicitly local for that to work - what happens if I assign a new name in that block?

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Chris Angelico ] > I'm concerned that there are, in effect, two quite different uses of > the exact same syntax. Yes, the construct implements a profoundly different meaning of "scope" depending on the context it appears in. > 1) In an arbitrary expression, local() creates a

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-28 21:40, Tim Peters wrote: > [Ed Kellett ] >> How about if you just can't have an expression in a local()? > > See the quadratic equation example in the original post. When > working with expressions, the entire point of the construct is to > define

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Ed Kellett ] > How about if you just can't have an expression in a local()? See the quadratic equation example in the original post. When working with expressions, the entire point of the construct is to define (sub)local names for use in a result expression. >

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Ed Kellett wrote: > On 2018-04-28 18:36, Chris Angelico wrote: >> This makes reasonable sense. The parentheses completely enclose the >> local scope. It's compiler magic, and you cannot explain it as a >> function call, but it makes

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-28 18:16, Tim Peters wrote: > [Steven D'Aprano ] >> But the biggest problem is that this re-introduces exactly the same >> awful C mistake that := was chosen to avoid. Which of the following two >> contains the typo? >> >> local(spam=expression, eggs=expression,

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-28 18:36, Chris Angelico wrote: > This makes reasonable sense. The parentheses completely enclose the > local scope. It's compiler magic, and you cannot explain it as a > function call, but it makes intuitive sense. But the same thing inside > the if header itself would be much weirder.

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

[Steven D'Aprano ] > Chris' PEP 572 started off with the concept that binding expressions > would create a "sub-local" scope, below function locals. After some > debate on Python-Ideas, Chris, Nick and Guido took the discussion off > list and decided to drop the sub-local

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

>$(a=7, $(a=a+1, a*2)) I suspect you ALREADY have bash installed on your computer, you don't need Python to emulate it. On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Zero Piraeus wrote: > : > > On 28 April 2018 at 07:07, Tim Peters wrote: > > [...] For that

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 2018-04-27 11:37 PM, Tim Peters wrote: A brain dump, inspired by various use cases that came up during the binding expression discussions. Idea: introduce a "local" pseudo-function to capture the idea of initialized names with limited scope. As an expression, it's "local" "("

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

I have to say, this idea feels really nice to me. It's far easier to read than := and separates the assignments and the result expression nicely. Others have brought up the same problem of = vs ==. IMO a solution could be to make a requirement that the last argument is NOT an assignment. In

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Zero Piraeus wrote: > I think I finally worked out why I have such a violent reaction to := > in the end, by the way: it's because it reminds me of Javascript's > "===" (not the meaning, but the fact that it exists). Out of morbid curiosity,

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

: On 28 April 2018 at 07:07, Tim Peters wrote: > [...] For that matter, I'd be fine too with shortening it to "let". In > fact, I prefer that! Thanks :-) If you really wanted to overcome objections that this looks too much like a function, you could spell it "$". I'm not

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 09:37:53PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > A brain dump, inspired by various use cases that came up during the > binding expression discussions. > > Idea: introduce a "local" pseudo-function to capture the idea of > initialized names with limited scope. [...] Chris' PEP 572

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On 28 April 2018 at 03:37, Tim Peters wrote: > Idea: introduce a "local" pseudo-function to capture the idea of > initialized names with limited scope. This looks disturbingly good to me. I say "disturbingly" because the amount of magic involved in that "function call" is

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:07 AM Tim Peters wrote: [...] > Speaking of which, "sublocal" would be a more accurate name, and less > likely to conflict with existing code names, but after people got over > the shock to their sense of purity, they'd appreciate typing the >

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

Hi Tim, This is interesting. Even "as is" I prefer this to PEP 572. Below are some comments and a slightly different idea inspired by yours (sorry!) On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:41 PM Tim Peters wrote: [..] > As an expression, it's > "local" "(" arguments ")" > -

[Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

A brain dump, inspired by various use cases that came up during the binding expression discussions. Idea: introduce a "local" pseudo-function to capture the idea of initialized names with limited scope. As an expression, it's "local" "(" arguments ")" - Because it "looks like" a function