[Jeremy] > 1 Should this work? > > if x: > from __future__ import nested_scopes > > I presume not, but the sketch of the rules you posted earlier > presumably allow it. You have to learn to think more like tabnanny: "module scope" obviously means "indent level 0" if you're obsessed with whitespace <wink>. > 2. How should the interactive interpreter be handled? You're kidding. I thought we agreed to drop the interactive interpreter for 2.1? (Let's *really* give 'em something to carp about ...) > I presume if you type > >>> from __future__ import nested_scopes > > That everything thereafter will be compiled with nested scopes. That's my guess too, of course. > This ends up being a little tricky, because the interpreter has to > hang onto this information and tell the compiler about it. Ditto for python -i some_script.py where some_script.py contains a magical import. OTOH, does exec-compiled (or execfile-ed) code start with a clean slate, or inherent the setting of the module from which it's exec[file]'ed? I think the latter has to be true. Could get messy, so it's a good thing we've got several whole days to work out the kinks ... business-as-usual-ly y'rs - tim
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