RetroSearch Browse

Sun Feb 26 08:15:20 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061838.html

On 2/26/06, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Alternatively, 'global' could be redefined to mean
> what we're thinking of for 'outer'. Then there would
> be no change in keywordage.
>
> There would be potential for breaking code, but I
> suspect the actual amount of breakage would be
> small, since there would have to be 3 scopes
> involved, with something in the middle one
> shadowing a global that was referenced in the
> inner one with a global statement.
>
> Given the rarity of global statement usage to begin
> with, I'd say that narrows things down to something
> well within the range of acceptable breakage in 3.0.

You read my mind--I made a reply similar to this on another branch of
this thread just minutes ago :).

I am curious to see what the community thinks about this.

-Almann

--
Almann T. Goo
almann.goo at gmail.com

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061838.html below:

[Python-Dev] Using and binding relative names (was Re: PEP for Better Control of Nested Lexical Scopes)