[me]
> > I've never liked this very much, mostly because it breaks simplicity:
> > the idea that a namespace is a mapping from names to values
> > (e.g. {"limit": 100, "doit": <function...>, ...}) is beautifully
> > simple, while the idea of inserting an extra level of indirection, no
> > matter how powerful, is much murkier.
[Jim F]
> How so? It doesn't change the mapping semantics.
My assumption is that in your version, the dictionary would contain
special <object binding> objects which then would contain the
referenced objects. E.g. {"limit": <binding: 100>, "doit": <binding:
<function ...>>}. Thus, d["limit"] would be that <binding> object,
while previously it would return 100.
> Again, it would also make function global variable access
> faster and cleaner in some ways.
But I have other plans for that (if the optional static typing stuff
ever gets implemented).
> > however it would break a considerable amount of old code,
> > I think.
>
> Really? I wonder. I bet it would break alot less old
> code that other recent changes.
Oh? Name some changes that broke a lot of code?
--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