> I should admit that I like the idea of nested scopes, because I like functional
> programming style, but I don't know whether this returning 3 is nice ;)?
>
> def f():
> def g():
> return y
> # put as many innoncent code lines as you like
> y=3
> return g()
This is a red herring; I don't see how this differs from the confusion
in
def f():
print y
# lots of code
y = 3
and I don't see how nested scopes add a new twist to this known issue.
> It really seems that there's not been enough discussion about the change,
Maybe,
> and I think that is also ok to honestely be worried about what user
> will feel about this? (and we can only think about this beacuse
> the feedback is not that much)
FUD.
> Will this code breakage "scare" them and slow down migration to new versions
> of python? They are already afraid of going 2.0(?). It is maybe just PR matter
> but ...
More FUD.
> The *point* is that we are not going from version 0.8 to version 0.9
> of our toy research lisp dialect, passing from dynamic scoping to lexical
> scoping. (Yes, I think, that changing semantic behind the scene is not
> a polite move.)
Well, I'm actually glad to hear this -- Python now has such a large
user base that language changes are deemed impractical.
> We really need the BDFL proposing the right thing.
We'll discuss this more at the PythonLabs group meeting. For now, I
prefer to move forward with nested scopes, breaking code and all.
--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