"Guido van Rossum" <guido at python.org> wrote in message news:200310212340.h9LNeYq25691 at 12-236-54-216.client.attbi.com... > Eek. Global statement inside flow control should be deprecated, not > abused to show that global is evil. :-) Is there any good reason to ever use globals anywhere other than as the first statement (after doc string) of a function? If not, could its usage be so restricted (like __future__ import)? > > Plus. EVERY newbie makes the mistake of taking "global" to mean > > "for ALL modules" rather than "for THIS module", Part of my brain still thinks that, and another part has to say, 'no, just modular or mod_vars()'. > Only if they've been exposed to languages that have such globals. Like Python with __builtins__? which I think of as the true globals. Do C or Fortran count as such a source of 'infection'? > > uselessly using global in toplevel, > > Which the parser should reject. Good. The current nonrejection sometimes leads beginners astray because they think it must be doing something. While I use global/s() just fine, I still don't like the names. I decided awhile ago that they must predate import, when the current module scoop would have been 'global'. >[from another post] But I appreciate the argument; 'global' comes from ABC's >SHARE, but ABC doesn't have modules. Aha! Now I can use this explanation as fact instead of speculation. Terry J. Reedy
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