Whoops. I totally misread that! My brain unhelpfully supplied string quotes
in the return statement of the `eggs` methods, rather than parsing them as
function calls. ...for some reason I could not explain to you.
Maybe I've grown too dependent on syntax highlighting!
I see what Steven meant now. Ignore what I typed earlier, then.
To be honest, I do completely agree. I think the most useful and least
surprising implementation would be to give the namespace block its own
temporary scope (with outer names still available), and then only at the
end of the block just before the scope is destroyed do any names bound to
it get set on the parent scope.
So:
def spam():
return "spam spam spam!"
def eggs():
return spam()
namespace Shop:
old_spam = spam # No NameError, the `spam` from module scope is
still accessible here if we want it!
def spam():
return "There's not much call for spam here."
new_spam = spam # this now refers to the function defined immediately above
def eggs():
return spam() # this refers to the same object as `new_spam`,
not the `spam` from globals()
# at this point globals()['Shop.spam'] would still raise a
NameError. It doesn't exist yet!
namespace Shelf:
this_is_shop_spam = spam # However, we can access it from
inside another nested namespace as a simple name. The scoping rules on
nested classes would not allow this!
# at this point globals()['Shop.spam'] exists!
Sorry Steven! I totally misunderstood your example. It was a really good
point. Thanks :)
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 12:06 PM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 at 11:33, Matt del Valle <matthew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> To give an example:
> >>
> >> def spam():
> >> return "spam spam spam!"
> >>
> >> def eggs():
> >> return spam()
> >>
> >> namespace Shop:
> >> def spam():
> >> return "There's not much call for spam here."
> >> def eggs():
> >> return spam()
> >>
> >> print(eggs())
> >> # should print "spam spam spam!"
> >> print(Shop.eggs())
> >> # should print "There's not much call for spam here."
> >
> >
> > I'm guessing this was a typo and you meant to type:
> >
> > print(spam())
> > # should print "spam spam spam!"
> > print(Shop.spam())
> > # should print "There's not much call for spam here."
> >
> > Because if you did, then this is precisely how it would work under this
> proposal. :)
>
> I'm not the OP, but I read their question precisely as it was written.
> The global eggs() returns the value from calling spam() and should use
> the *global* spam. The eggs in namespace Shop calls spam and returns
> its value, and I'd expect that call to resolve to Shop.spam, using the
> namespace eggs is defined in. If that's not how you imagine namespaces
> working, I think they are going to be quite non-intuitive for at least
> a certain set of users (including me...)
>
> Paul
>
_______________________________________________
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/JOPSMGLXNWQTN6RXB6CEDOAAARDU23PI/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
