On 2024-03-08, Chris Angelico via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:51, Grant Edwards via Python-list ><python-list@python.org> wrote: > >> One might argue that "global" isn't a good choice for what to call the >> scope in question, since it's not global. It's limited to that source >> file. It doesn't make sense to me to call a binding "global", when >> there can be multile different "global" bindings of the same name. > > Most "globals" aren't global either, since you can have different > globals in different running applications.
To me, "global" has always been limited to within a single process/address space, but that's probably just bias left over from C/Pascal/FORTRAN/assembly/etc. It never occurred to me that a global called "X" in one program on one computer would be the same as a global called "X" in a different program on a different computer somewhere else on the "globe". -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list