Jeremy, I definitely agree that option one is more in line with the semantics in place within Python today.
> The names of naming statements are quite hard to get right, I fear. I > don't particularly like "use." It's too generic. (I don't > particularly like "scope" for option 2, either, for similar reasons. > It doesn't indicate what kind of scope issue is being declared.) The > most specifc thing I can think of is "free" to indicate that the > variable is free in the current scope. It may be too specialized a > term to be familiar to most people. I am not married to any particular keyword for sure--I would be happy for the most part if the language was fixed regardless of the keyword chosen. "free" gives me the sense that I am de-allocating memory (my C background talking), I don't think most people would get the mathematical reference for "free". I certainly hope that an initiative like this doesn't get stymied by the lack of a good name for such a keyword. Maybe something like "outer"? > I think free == global in the absence of other bindings. I actually like this, would sort of make "global" obsolete (and thus making the global scope behave like other lexical scopes with regard to to re-binding, which is probably a good thing) -Almann -- Almann T. Goo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com