Skip Montanaro wrote: > Given that the global keyword or something like it is here to stay (being > preferable over some attribute-style access) and that global variable writes > needs to be known to the compiler for future efficiency reasons, I think we > need to consider modifications of the current global statement. The best > thing I've seen so far (I forget who proposed it) is > > 'global' vars [ 'in' named_scope ] ... > This should be compatible with existing usage. The only problem I see is > whether the named_scope needs to be known at compile time or if it can be > deferred until run time. How about (to abuse a keyword that's gone unmolested for too long) global foo from def to declare that foo refers a variable in a lexically enclosing function definition? This avoids to need to name a specific function (which IMHO is just a source of confusion over the semantics of strange cases) while still having some mnemonic value (foo "comes from" an enclosing function definition). jw
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