[Python-Dev] Re: Re: closure semantics
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri Oct 24 13:07:39 EDT 2003
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri Oct 24 13:07:39 EDT 2003
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: closure semantics
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: Re: closure semantics
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy)" <tdelaney at avaya.com> wrote in message > I think these two points [consistency and teachability] >should weigh heavily in any decision. Agree also >I think the need to rename the target scope is of lesser importance. If you mean the need to sync the inner global-in statement with an outer function name change, that is less onerous than the doing the same for variable name changes (which might require changes to several lines in the inner function). Function name mismatches would, I presume, be caught as compile-time syntax errors. But what about name mismatches? Global statements allows functions to create 'new' variables in the module scope and not just 'existing' ones. What about for in-between scopes? #start of fress interpreter session def f(): global xf xf = 1 def g() global xg xg = 2 global xgf in f xgf = 3 does this compile and run? or choke on third global at compile time? or choke on third assignment at runtime? Terry J. Reedy
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: closure semantics
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: Re: closure semantics
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list