[Python-Dev] Using and binding relative names (was Re: PEP forBetter Control of Nested Lexical Scopes) (original) (raw)
Almann T. Goo almann.goo at gmail.com
Mon Feb 27 02:27:42 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Using and binding relative names (was Re: PEP forBetter Control of Nested Lexical Scopes)
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Using and binding relative names (was Re: PEP forBetter Control of Nested Lexical Scopes)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2/26/06, Ron Adam <rrr at ronadam.com> wrote:
I'm -1 on adding the intermediate (outer) scopes to functions. I'd even like to see closures gone completely, but there's probably a reason they are there.
We already have enclosing scopes since Python 2.1--this is PEP 227 (http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0227.html). The proposal is for a mechanism to allow for re-binding of enclosing scopes which seems like a logical step to me. The rest of the scoping semantics would remain as they are today in Python.
-Almann
-- Almann T. Goo almann.goo at gmail.com
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Using and binding relative names (was Re: PEP forBetter Control of Nested Lexical Scopes)
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Using and binding relative names (was Re: PEP forBetter Control of Nested Lexical Scopes)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]