On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 8:28 PM Brendan Barnwell <brenb...@brenbarn.net>
wrote:
> After following this thread I'm still not convinced changing the for
> loop is really a good idea. I basically agree with Steven D'Aprano that
> the supposed benefits of "protecting" against accidental name shadowing
> are marginal at best and don't justify complicating matters.
+100
> def f(a, b, c) with x, y:
> # x and y here have whatever values they had in the enclosing
> scope at definition time
>
I don't *entirely* hate this. But it still feels like new syntax for
something that is perfectly good as pure convention:
def f(a, b, c=21, _foo=foo, _bar=bar):
# "capture" foo and bar from enclosing scope
foo, bar = _foo, _bar # optionally
...
Of course I know that users COULD call `f(1, 2, _foo=something_else)`. But
we have asked them not to politely, and "we're all consenting adults."
What feels like a VASTLY more important issue is that foo and bar might
have mutable types. Quite possibly, the underlying objects have changed
before the calling point. That can be good or bad, but it's definitely
something folks stumble over.
On the other hand, I know it perfectly well, and the number of times I've
written this is small:
def g(a, b, _foo=deepcopy(foo)):
...
--
The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
not-yet born. Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
become abortifacients against new conceptions.
_______________________________________________
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/ZALXYJKLXWHSWXQAZ2MBVSPGXEONTETB/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
