Jeremy Hylton wrote:
>
> Looks like we need to rehash this thread at least enough to determine
> who is responsible for causing us to rehash it.
>
> MAL said it would break code. I asked how. Skip and Tim obliged with
> examples. I said their examples exhibited bad style; neither of them
> claimed they were good style.
>
> In the end, I observed that while it could break code in theory, I
> doubted it really would break much code. Furthermore, I believe that
> the code it will break is already obscure so we needn't worry about
> it.
That's just what I was trying to say all along: statically
nested scopes don't buy you anything except maybe for lambdas
and nested functions (which is bad style programming, IMHO too).
The only true argument for changing scoping I see is that
of gained purity in language design... without much practical
use.
Other issues that need sorting out:
x = 2
class C:
x = 1
C = 'some string'
def a(self):
print x
def b(self):
global x
x = 3
class D(C):
C = 'some string'
def a(self):
C.a(self)
print C
o = C()
o.a()
o.b()
o.a()
o = D()
o.a()
What would the output look like under your proposal ?
--
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