On 04/17/2018 07:01 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> That ambiguity generally doesn't exist with simple name bindings (I'm >> excluding execution namespaces with exotic binding behaviour from >> consideration here, as the consequences of trying to work with those >> are clearly on the folks defining and using them). > > The cool thing about the simple and naive code is that even those > should work. I don't have an example ready for demo, but I fully > expect that it would 'just work' the exact same way; the namespace > would never be retrieved from, only set to. > > Hmm. I don't know what the consequences would be on class namespace > with a non-vanilla dict. Probably functionally identical. But there > might be some extremely weird cases if the namespace dict accepts > setitem and then raises KeyError for that key. If you want to play with a non-standard (okay, wierd) class namespaces, you can try using the assignment expression in an Enum class. -- ~Ethan~
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4