On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:13 AM Alexis Masson<a.masson...@ntymail.com> wrote:
This, in addition with locals().update(_), feels much better to me.
Furthermore, it would allow other string-like classes, such as bytes or
bytearray, to use that feature.
But locals().update() isn't a supported operation, except in the
situation where locals() is globals(). So what you're suggesting would
work fine in the REPL but not in any production usage.
ChrisA
That surprises me. I put a quick test to check :
def f() :
print(locals())
locals().update(dict(a=3))
print(locals())
f()
prints :
================= RESTART: ****/test.py ================
{}
{'a': 3}
>>>
So maybe the specs don't force it, but under the current implementation,
it seems to work.
I agree that it's bad practice anyway; a correct solution to the
original question might surely involve something akin to :for key, value
in parsed.items() :
for key, value in parsed.items() :
exec(f"{key} = {value}")
I like the idea of needing to format a string in the process of parsing
another ;)
Anyway, back on topic !
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/2VTQOGXLKZBGBJFZEQ7PGOHAYB4B5UDW/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
