> is the semantic (expressed through bytecode instrs) right?
Hi Samuele,
Thanks for bringing this up. I agree with your predictions for these
examples, and have checked them in as part of the test_scope.py test
suite. Fortunately Jeremy's code passes the test!
The rule is really pretty simple if you look at it through the right
glasses:
To resolve a name, search from the inside out for either a scope
that contains a global statement for that name, or a scope that
contains a definition for that name (or both).
Thus, on the one hand the effect of a global statement is restricted
to the current scope, excluding nested scopes:
def f():
global x
def g():
x = 1 # new local
On the other hand, a name mentioned a global hides outer definitions
of the same name, and thus has an effect on nested scopes:
def f():
x = 1
def g():
global x
def h():
return x # global
We shouldn't code like this, but it's good to agree on what it should
mean when encountered!
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4