On 2/21/06, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Almann T. Goo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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"? > > Adding a keyword has a cost that you have so far ignored. Guido is > rightfully very cautious about additions, especially for esthetic reasons. > > The issue of rebinding enclosed names was partly discussed in PEP 227. > Sometime after the implementation of the PEP in 2.1, it was thoroughly > discussed again (100+ posts?) in this forum. There were perhaps 10 > different proposals, including, I believe, 'outer'. Guido rejected them > all as having costs greater than the benefits. Perhaps you can find this > discussion in the archives. I remember it as a Jan-Feb discussion but > might be wrong.
If I recall the discussion correctly, Guido said he was open to a version of nested scopes that allowed rebinding. Not sure that the specifics of the previous discussion are necessary, but I recall being surprised by the change in opinion since 2.1 :-). Jeremy > > This thread so far seems like a rehash of parts of the earlier discussion. > In the absence of indication from Guido that he is ready to reopen the > issue, perhaps it would better go to comp.lang.python. In and case, > reconsideration is more likely to be stimulated by new experience with > problems in real code than by repeats of 'orthogonality' desires and > rejected changes. > > --- > > In another post, you rejected the use of class instances by opining: > > >Because I think that this is a workaround for a concept that the > >language doesn't support elegantly with its lexically nested scopes. > > >IMO, you are emulating name rebinding in a closure by creating an > >object to encapsulate the name you want to rebind > > Guido, on the other hand, views classes and instances as Python's method of > doing what other (functional) languages do with closures. From the PEP: > "Given that this > would encourage the use of local variables to hold state that is > better stored in a class instance, it's not worth adding new > syntax to make this possible (in Guido's opinion)." > He reiterated this viewpoint in the post-PEP discussion mentioned above. I > think he would specificly reject the view that Python's alternative is a > 'workaround' and 'emulation' of what you must consider to be the real > thing. > > Terry Jan Reedy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/jeremy%40alum.mit.edu > _______________________________________________ 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
