> Guido: > > A free variable might be a function that itself references globals (or > > at least nonlocals) that might change. > > > > There is also the issue of exceptions: Greg: > Oviously there will be semantic differences, but the question is > whether the consequences of them are serious enough to be worth > treating the outermost iterator differently from the others. > > I'm disturbed by the number of special rules we seem to be needing to > make up in the name of getting generator expressions to DWIM. First we > have free variables getting captured, which is unprecedented anywhere > else; now we have some iterators being treated more equally than > others. > > I'm getting an "architecture smell" here. Something is wrong > somewhere, and I don't think we're tinkering in the right place to fix > it properly. I'm not disagreeing -- I was originally vehemently against the idea of capturing free variables, but Tim gave an overwhelming argument that whenever it made a difference that was the desired semantics. But I always assumed that the toplevel iterable would be different. > I think I have an idea where the right place is, but I'll leave > that to another post. I suspect the idea isn't going to go down > well... --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