RetroSearch Browse

Mon Feb 21 04:41:09 CET 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051733.html

At 04:32 PM 2/21/05 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>>Hm, actually I think I see the answer; in the case of module-level code 
>>there can be no "anonymous local variables" the way there can in functions.
>
>Why not? There's still a frame object associated with the call
>of the anonymous function holding the module's top-level code.
>The compiler can allocate locals in that frame, even if the
>user's code can't.

That's a good point, but if you look at my "eliminating the block stack" 
post, you'll see that there's a simpler way to potentially get rid of the 
block stack, where "simpler" means "simpler changes in fewer places".

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051733.html below:

[Python-Dev] Store x Load x --> DupStore