[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Nathaniel raised a valid concern about the draft PEP over in https://bugs.python.org/issue30744#msg302475, so I've been considering whether or not it would be possible to make the write-through proxy idea work without introducing other

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Status update: I've posted an initial PR to issue 30744 that relies on the trace hook semantic change proposed in the PEP to resolve the trace hook/cell reference incompatibility reported there. That provides confidence that it really is only the semantics of

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Changes by Nick Coghlan : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +3635 stage: needs patch -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Posted as PEP 558: * https://github.com/python/peps/blob/master/pep-0558.rst * https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0558/ -- ___ Python tracker

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Changes by Nick Coghlan : -- assignee: -> ncoghlan ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Guido van Rossum added the comment: Yeah, I think a short PEP would be helpful here. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Guido: perhaps I should run this update through the PEP process? Even though the actual proposed change is only to a pretty obscure edge case (having multiple concurrent live references to the result of locals() for a function namespace), the extra visibility

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Changes by Xavier G. Domingo : -- nosy: +xgdomingo ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Guido van Rossum added the comment: I've tried thinking though a few scenarios, and I think I'm +1 (or at least +0 or +0.5) on the proposed change to locals(), and of course I'm happy that we're going to specify its behavior better. -- ___ Python

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Since "soonish" turned out to be "4 years and counting", copying in the specifics of the proposal in from the old python-dev thread: 1. While nominally undefined, in practice lots of Python programs depend on the locals() builtin behaving exactly how it behaves

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Changes by Nick Coghlan : -- versions: +Python 3.7 -Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Changes by Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us: -- nosy: -ethan.furman ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue17960 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Changes by Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com: -- assignee: ncoghlan - ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue17960 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

New submission from Nick Coghlan: As proposed at [1], I would like to tighten up the definition of locals so that defining enum members programmatically is officially supported behaviour. I'll come up with a patch soonish. [1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-May/125917.html

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Ezio Melotti added the comment: See also #17546 and #7083. -- nosy: +ezio.melotti ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue17960 ___ ___

[issue17960] Clarify the required behaviour of locals()

Changes by Florent Xicluna florent.xicl...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +flox ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue17960 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list