[Python-Dev] Re: closure semantics
John Williams
jrw at pobox.com
Thu Oct 23 17:40:33 EDT 2003
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Thu Oct 23 17:40:33 EDT 2003
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: closure semantics
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: closure semantics
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Skip Montanaro wrote: > Given that the global keyword or something like it is here to stay (being > preferable over some attribute-style access) and that global variable writes > needs to be known to the compiler for future efficiency reasons, I think we > need to consider modifications of the current global statement. The best > thing I've seen so far (I forget who proposed it) is > > 'global' vars [ 'in' named_scope ] ... > This should be compatible with existing usage. The only problem I see is > whether the named_scope needs to be known at compile time or if it can be > deferred until run time. How about (to abuse a keyword that's gone unmolested for too long) global foo from def to declare that foo refers a variable in a lexically enclosing function definition? This avoids to need to name a specific function (which IMHO is just a source of confusion over the semantics of strange cases) while still having some mnemonic value (foo "comes from" an enclosing function definition). jw
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: closure semantics
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: closure semantics
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list