Semantics --------- The code::
<statement> with: <suite>
translates to::
def unique_name(): <suite> <statement> unique_name()
I've come to the conclusion that these semantics aren't what I would expect from the construct. Exactly what I would expect can't really be expressed in current Python due to the way local name bindings work. The main thing to consider is what one would expect the following to print:
def f():
a = 1
b = 2
print 1, locals()
print 3, locals() using:
a = 2
c = 3
print 2, locals()
print 4, locals()I think the least suprising result would be:
1 {'a': 1, 'b': 2} # Outer scope
2 {'a': 2, 'c': 3} # Inner scope
3 {'a': 2, 'b': 2, 'c': 3} # Bridging scope
4 {'a': 1, 'b': 2} # Outer scopeIn that arrangement, the statement with a using clause is executed normally in the outer scope, but with the ability to see additional names in its local namespace. If this can be arranged, then name binding in the statement with the using clause will work as we want it to.
Anyway, I think further investigation of the idea is dependent on a closer look at the feasibility of actually implementing it. Given that it isn't as compatible with the existing nested scope structure as I first thought, I suspect it will be both tricky to implement, and hard to sell to the BDFL afterwards :(
Cheers, Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
