[Python-Dev] Using and binding relative names (was Re: PEP forBetter Control of Nested Lexical Scopes) (original) (raw)

Ron Adam rrr at ronadam.com
Sun Feb 26 20:47:18 CET 2006

Terry Reedy wrote:

"Almann T. Goo" <almann.goo at gmail.com> wrote in message news:7e9b97090602252315mf6d4686ud86dd5163ea76b37 at mail.gmail.com...

On 2/26/06, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

Alternatively, 'global' could be redefined to mean what we're thinking of for 'outer'. Then there would be no change in keywordage. Given the rarity of global statement usage to begin with, I'd say that narrows things down to something well within the range of acceptable breakage in 3.0. You read my mind--I made a reply similar to this on another branch of this thread just minutes ago :).

I am curious to see what the community thinks about this. I think I like this better than more complicated proposals. I don't think I would ever have a problem with the intermediate scope masking the module scope. After all, if I really meant to access the current global scope from a nested function, I simply would not use that name in the intermediate scope. tjr

Would this apply to reading intermediate scopes without the global keyword?

How would you know you aren't in inadvertently masking a name in a function you call?

In most cases it will probably break something in an obvious way, but I suppose in some cases it won't be so obvious.

Ron

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list