Home Original page

[Python-Dev] PEP 558: Defined semantics for locals()

Richard Damon Richard at Damon-Family.org
Mon May 27 15:08:55 EDT 2019 
On 5/27/19 2:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/27/2019 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/19 9:12 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>>> I believe that the situation is or can be thought of as this: there is
>>> exactly 1 function locals dict.
>
> per function invocation, or more generally, as Guido said, per stack
> frame.  This part is obvious to me, but I should have been clearer.
>
>>>   Initially, it is empty and
>>> inaccessible (unusable) from code.  Each locals() call updates the
>>> dict to a current snapshot and returns it.
>>>
>> I had a similar concern, and one BIG issue with it being define this way
>> is that you get a fundamental re-entrancy problem. If module a uses
>> locals(), and then calls module b that uses locals(), module a has lost
>> its usage.
>
> No. Sorry about being unclear.
>
Ok, if each function invocation gets its own dict, then the reentrancy
issues go away.

The fact that it isn't the 'active' dict, so you can't use it to modify
the current state, but also you don't get a fresh copy each time (there
is a single mutable dict that gets updated) seems to be an odd behavior
and I can't see where it is an advantage to the user of the function, or
where that makes it easier on the implementation. (But I could easy be
missing something).

-- 
Richard Damon
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list