A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-February/013048.html below:

[Python-Dev] Those import related syntax errors again...

[Python-Dev] Those import related syntax errors again... [Python-Dev] Those import related syntax errors again...Jeremy Hylton jeremy@alum.mit.edu
Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:45:30 -0500 (EST)
>>>>> "SP" == Samuele Pedroni <pedroni@inf.ethz.ch> writes:

  SP> My very personal feeling is that *any* rule on exec just sounds
  SP> arbitrary (even if motived and acceptable).

My personal feeling is that exec is used rarely enough that a few
restrictions on its use is not a problem.  The restriction can be
fairly minimal -- "exec" without "in" is not allowed in a function
that contains nested blocks with free variables.

Heck, we would just outlaw all uses of exec without in <0.5 wink>.
I would argue for this rule in Python 3000, but it would break a lot
more code than the restriction proposed above.

Jeremy



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