RetroSearch Browse

Thu Oct 23 23:44:51 EDT 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039420.html

> We've been assuming all along that the semantics of a
> plain "global" statement have to remain exactly as they
> are, but is that strictly necessary?
> 
> How much hardship would it cause, really, if "global"
> were simply redefined to mean "the next scope out where
> it's bound"?
> 
> It would only break something if "global" were used in
> a nested function *and* there were a variable with the
> same name in some intermediate scope. That sounds like
> a rather rare set of conditions to me. Not significantly
> more common than "yield" being used as a variable name,
> surely?

Reasonable assumption.  We'd have to do a survey.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039420.html below:

[Python-Dev] closure semantics