From: Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) [mailto:tdelaney at avaya.com]
> It would break any unadorned 'global x' in a nested scope
> if the name did not exist anywhere.
> I'm not saying this would be good form - personally I think
> anyone who did this would deserve it - but it would definitely break.
> One option would be to have an "if the name doesn't exist, it it
> created in module scope". But all this creates too many exceptions
> to what would otherwise be a simple rule IMO:
>
> global <name> [in <scope>]
>
> where <scope> default to the current module.
This made me think. What should be the effect of
def f():
x = 12
def g():
global y in f
y = 12
g()
print locals()
I suspect the answer is "it's illegal". But by extension from the current
behaviour of "global", it should create a local variable in f.
Paul
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