Home Original page

[Python-Dev] PEP for Better Control of Nested Lexical Scopes

Almann T. Goo almann.goo at gmail.com
Tue Feb 21 14:16:08 CET 2006 
Jeremy,

I definitely agree that option one is more in line with the semantics
in place within Python today.

> The names of naming statements are quite hard to get right, I fear.  I
> don't particularly like "use."  It's too generic.  (I don't
> particularly like "scope" for option 2, either, for similar reasons.
> It doesn't indicate what kind of scope issue is being declared.)  The
> most specifc thing I can think of is "free" to indicate that the
> variable is free in the current scope.  It may be too specialized a
> term to be familiar to most people.

I am not married to any particular keyword for sure--I would be happy
for the most part if the language was fixed regardless of the keyword
chosen.  "free" gives me the sense that I am de-allocating memory (my
C background talking), I don't think most people would get the
mathematical reference for "free".

I certainly hope that an initiative like this doesn't get stymied by
the lack of a good name for such a keyword.  Maybe something like
"outer"?

> I think free == global in the absence of other bindings.

I actually like this, would sort of make "global" obsolete (and thus
making the global scope behave like other lexical scopes with regard
to to re-binding, which is probably a good thing)

-Almann

--
Almann T. Goo
almann.goo at gmail.com
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list