Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> writes: > On 2/27/18 3:52 AM, Kirill Balunov wrote: >> a. Is this restriction for locals desirable in the implementation of >> CPython in Python 3? >> b. Or is it the result of temporary fixes for Python 2? > > My understanding is that the behavior of locals() is determined mostly > by what is convenient for the implementors, so that they can keep > regular code running as quickly as possible. The answer to the > question, "why can't we make locals() work more like I expect?" is, > "because that would make things slower." >> >> Personally, I find the convenient functionality to update the local symbol >> table inside a function, similar to `globals`. > > Can you show us an example of why you would want to update locals > through locals()? There might be more natural ways to solve your > problem.
I am still working with Python 2 (Python 3 may behave differently). There, during debugging, I would sometimes like to change the value of variables (I know that the variable has got a wrong value and would like to fix it to continue senseful debugging without a restart). This works for variables not yet known inside the function but does not work for true local variables. I assume that this is one effect of the "locals()" restriction. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
