Over on Discuss, there's a small discussion about the "lambdas in for loop" problem described in the FAQs.
https://discuss.python.org/t/make-lambdas-proper-closures/10553 https://docs.python.org/3/faq/programming.html#why-do-lambdas-defined-in-a-loop-with-different-values-all-return-the-same-result I've created a poll on Discuss. If you have an account, you may like to vote on whether for loops should run in their own scope: https://discuss.python.org/t/should-loops-be-in-their-own-scope-poll/10593 * No change, leave loops as they are. * Change loops to use their own scope. * No change for loops by default, but add an option to run them in a new scope. Just throwing out some random syntax to be shot down, how does this read to folks? for item in sequence in scope: # block here has its own scope ... I have no idea what the implementation difficulties might be, but with lots of hand-waving and in full knowledge that it won't be *me* having to do the implementation, I imagine it could be easy enough if the for loop is compliled into a nested function that is then immediately executed. Sort of like a comprehension? Personally, I'm happy with Python not using block scopes (only functions and classes create a new scope, other blocks do not). But for loop scope does seem to be frequently requested, so while I don't see the benefit myself, maybe others do. -- Steve _______________________________________________ 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/YCTRSKPVDE43LAYNVDMXI7OJJ73FZDGN/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
