[Python-Dev] Early PEP draft (For Python 3000?) (original) (raw)

Josiah Carlson jcarlson at uci.edu
Fri Oct 14 09:23:44 CEST 2005

Calvin Spealman <ironfroggy at gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/11/05, Eyal Lotem <eyal.lotem at gmail.com> wrote: > locals()['x'] = 1 # Quietly fails! > Replaced by: > frame.x = 1 # Raises error What about the possibility of making this hypothetic frame object an indexable, such that frame[0] is the current scope, frame[1] is the calling scope, etc.? On the same lines, what about closure[0] for the current frame, while closure[1] resolves to the closure the function was defined in? These would ensure that you could reliably access any namespace you would need, without nasty stack tricks and such, and would make working around some of the limitation of the closures, when you have such a need. One might even consider a resolve to be defined in any namespace, allowing all the namespace resolution rules to be overridden by code at any level.

-1000 If you want a namespace, create one and pass it around. If the writer of a function or method wanted you monkeying around with a namespace, they would have given you one to work with.

As for closure monkeywork, you've got to be kidding. Closures in Python are a clever and interesting way of keeping around certain things, but are actually unnecessary with the existance of class and instance namespaces. Every example of a closure can be re-done as a class/instance, and many end up looking better.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list