RetroSearch Browse

Wed Feb 22 01:35:32 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061667.html

Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Jeremy Hylton <jeremy at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
>>On 2/21/06, Bengt Richter <bokr at oz.net> wrote:
> 
>>>But to the topic, it just occurred to me that any outer scopes could be given names
>>>(including global namespace, but that would have the name global by default, so
>>>global.x would essentially mean what globals()['x'] means now, except it would
>>>be a name error if x didn't pre-exist when accessed via namespace_name.name_in_space notation.
> 
> Isn't this suggestion that same as Greg Ewing's?

It's not quite the same, because in my scheme the namespace
statement creates a new namespace embedded in the scope
where it appears, whereas Bengt's one seems to just give
a name to the scope itself.

I'm not really in favour of either of these -- I'd be
just as happy with a simple 'outer' statement.

-- 
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | Carpe post meridiam!          	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | (I'm not a morning person.)          |
greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061667.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP for Better Control of Nested Lexical Scopes