Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > It may not look serious, but changing the Python lookup scheme > > is, since many inspection tools rely and reimplement exactly > > that scheme. With nested scopes, there would be next to no > > way to emulate the lookups using these tools. > > So fix the tools. Eek. Are you proposing to break all the Python IDE that are just appearing out there ? > > To be honest, I don't think static nested scopes buy us all that > > much. You can do the same now, by using keyword arguments which > > isn't all that nice, but works great and makes the scope clearly > > visible. > > Yes. It's a hack that gets employed over and over. And it has > certain problems. We added 'import as' to get rid of a common > practice that was perceived unclean. Maybe we should support nested > scopes to get rid of another unclean common practice? I think the common practice mainly comes from the fact, that by making globals locals which can benefit from LOAD_FAST you get a noticable performance boost. So the "right" solution to these weird looking hacks would be to come up with a smart way by which the Python compiler itself can do the localizing. Nested scopes won't help eliminating the current keyword practice. > I'm not saying that we definitely should add this to 2.1 (there's > enough on our plate already) but we should at least consider it, and > now that we have cycle GC, the major argument against it (that it > causes cycles) is gone... Hmm, so far the only argument for changing Python lookups was to allow writing lambdas without keyword hacks. Does this really warrant breaking code ? What other advantages would statically nested scopes have ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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