> Implementation details - even just partial sketches - are always > "busy". Think of it this way instead: it's _currently_ the case that > listcomps & genexps run in a scope S that's the same as the scope C > that contains them, _except_ that names appearing as `for` targets are > local to S. All other names in S resolve to exactly the same scopes > they resolved to in C (local in C, global in C, nonlocal in C - > doesn't matter). > > What changes now? Nothing in that high-level description, except that > a name appearing as a binding expression target in S that's otherwise > unknown in C establishes that the name is local to C. That's nothing > essentially new, though - bindings _always_ establish scopes for > otherwise-unknown names in Python.
That's a very nice (and short) explanation! Maybe my distrust is just don't like the new syntax, or that I'am biased towards using "as". -- Juancarlo *Añez*
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/