RetroSearch Browse

Tue May 2 16:02:37 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-May/064781.html

On Tue, May 02, 2006, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>>
>>> and am +0 on the double use below:
>>>
>>>     for x in y:
>>>         for x in z:
>> 
>> Can anyone think of a plausible use case for that?
> 
> This really seems more like the domain of pychecker/pylint rather than
> the compiler. The code may be a bad idea, but I don't see any reason
> to make it a syntax error.

My sentiments precisely.  Unless someone can come up with a good reason
for changing the current semantics, I'm -1.

Side note: if people do want to continue discussing this, I think it
should go to python-3000.  There is absolutely no reason to break
currently-running code that happens to use this pattern.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours."  --Richard Bach

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-May/064781.html below:

[Python-Dev] elimination of scope bleeding ofiteration variables