> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:56:40AM -0500, Jeremy Hylton wrote: > > > A note of clarification seems important here: The restrictions are > > not being introduced to simplify the implementation. They're being > > introduced because there is no sensible meaning for code that uses > > import * and nested scopes with free variables. There are two > > possible meanings, each plausible and neither satisfying. > > I disagree. There are several ways to work around them, or the BDFL could > just make a decision on what it should mean. Since import * is already illegal according to the reference manual, that's an easy call: I pronounce that it's illegal. For b/w compatibility we'll try to allow it in as many situations as possible where it's not ambiguous. > I don't *just* object to the backwards incompatibility, but also to the > added complexity and the strange special cases, most of which were > introduced (at my urging, I'll readily admit and for which I should and do > appologize) to reduce the impact of the incompatibility. I do not believe > the ability to leave out the default-argument-hack (if you don't use > import-*/exec in the same function) is worth all that. The strange special cases should not remain a permanent wart in the language; rather, import * in functions should be considered deprecated. In 2.2 we should issue a warning for this in most cases. (Is there as much as a hassle with exec? IMO exec without an in-clause should also be deprecated.) --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