Guido van Rossum wrote: > I still would like to be able to say "if you add a module global that > corresponds to a built-in name used in the module, the module may > continue to use the built-in name". As long as we can detect *most* > of the ways of inserting such module globals, the remaining ways could > be declared illegal without making them impossible. I'd phrase this differently: Those cases just get a different semantics then they have now; the module-level name is ignored unless explicitly qualified. In the spirit of C, hiding builtins would cause "undefined behaviour" or "implementation-defined behaviour", and not be "illegal". Regards, Martin
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