RetroSearch Browse

Mon Feb 27 02:27:42 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-February/061858.html

On 2/26/06, Ron Adam <rrr at ronadam.com> wrote:
> I'm -1 on adding the intermediate (outer) scopes to functions. I'd even
> like to see closures gone completely, but there's probably a reason they
> are there.

We already have enclosing scopes since Python 2.1--this is PEP 227
(http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0227.html).  The proposal is for a
mechanism to allow for re-binding of enclosing scopes which seems like
a logical step to me.  The rest of the scoping semantics would remain
as they are today in Python.

-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/061858.html below:

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