RetroSearch Browse

Sun Oct 26 05:25:46 EST 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039541.html

On Sunday 26 October 2003 01:25, Aahz wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003, Alex Martelli wrote:
> > Or, we can make the _compiler_ aware of what is going on (and get just
> > the same semantics as global) by accepting either a non-statement
> > keyword (scope, as I suggested elsewhere) or a magicname for import,
> > e.g. import __me__ as Barry suggested.  Then __me__.x=23 can have just
> > the same semantics as today "x=23" has if there is some "global x"
> > somewhere around, and indeed it could be compiled into the same
> > bytecode if __me__ was sufficiently special to the compiler.
>
> We've already got ``import __main__``; what does __me__ gain?

import __main__

works only if the current module is being imported with the name __main__.
Most modules will be using a different name most of the time (i.e. except
when they're being used as main scripts, e.g. to run tests on them).

Similarly, even if I know a module is named foo.py and am willing to 
hardcode that into the module's source,

import foo as __me__

doesn't always work (submodules of packages, modules being run
as main scripts for testing).

Furthermore, the compiler cannot do anything special on most
imports.  __me__ would be designed as special (just like __future__
is) and allow the compiler to recognize the situation and do all it
wants or needs, thus obviating the need for "declarative statements".

Alex

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/039541.html below:

let's not stretch a keyword's use unreasonably, _please_...