RetroSearch Browse

Sun Feb 26 18:45:24 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061847.html

"Almann T. Goo" <almann.goo at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:7e9b97090602252315mf6d4686ud86dd5163ea76b37 at mail.gmail.com...
> 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.
>> 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.

I *think* I like this better than more complicated proposals.  I don't 
think I would ever have a problem with the intermediate scope masking the 
module scope.  After all, if I really meant to access the current global 
scope from a nested function, I simply would not use that name in the 
intermediate scope.

tjr

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061847.html below:

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