On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 March 2018 at 19:43, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > >> On 03/27/2018 11:12 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote: >> >>> On 27 March 2018 at 18:19, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> >> >> Hm, so maybe we shouldn't touch lambda, but we can at least fix the scope >>>> issues for comprehensions and genexprs. >>>> >>> >>> Removing the implicit function scope in comprehensions is something I >>> wanted for long time. >>> It would not only "fix" the scoping, but will also fix the yield inside >>> comprehensions. >>> >> >> Can we do it without leaking names? >> >> > If you mean this > > [i for i in range(5)] > > i # NameError > > then yes, this is possible. Serhiy outlined the implementation few moths > ago. The rough idea is to use automatic re-naming. > The only problem with this is that if someone will step into debugger one > will see a name like <comp>.0.i instead of i. > But this can be solved in the debuggers. > Oh, sorry, I misread what you were talking about. You're proposing going back to the Python 2 shared namespace. I'm not at all excited about that, and I'm not convinced that adjusting debuggers to hide the name mangling is effective -- it does nothing about other forms of introspection. Also depending on how PEP 572 falls there may be assignments in there. Plus there may be object lifetime consequences. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
