[Python-ideas] Tweaking closures and lexical scoping to include the function being defined
ron3200 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 2 19:05:17 CEST 2011
On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 09:38 -0400, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Ron Adam <ron3200 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 22:11 -0400, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > +1 on all of the zen statements of course.
> > I think you made a fine case for being careful and mindful about this
> > stuff. :-)
> Heh, even if nothing else comes out of these threads, I can be happy
> with helping others to learn how to look at this kind of question from
> multiple angles without getting too locked in to one point of view
> (and getting more practice at doing so, myself, of course!)
Yes, that's a very zen way to look at it. +1
Keeping that larger picture in mind, while sorting though various
smaller options is challenging. Hopefully in the end, the best
solution, (which may include doing nothing), will be sorted out.
> > One way to think of this is, Private, Shared, and Public, name spaces.
> > Private and Public are locals and globals, and are pretty well
> > supported, but Shared names spaces, (closures or otherwise) are not well
> > supported.
> > I think the whole concept of explicit shared name spaces, separate from
> > globals and locals is quite important and should be done carefully. I
> > don't think it is just about one or two use-cases that a small tweak
> > will cover.
> "not well supported" seems a little too harsh in the post PEP 3104
> 'nonlocal' declaration era.
I think the introspection tools you want will help.
hmm... what about the vars() function? (I tend to forget that one)
vars([object]) -> dictionary
Without arguments, equivalent to locals().
With an argument, equivalent to object.__dict__.
Could we extend that to see closures and scope visible names?
> If we look at the full suite of typical
> namespaces in Python, we currently have the following (note that
> read/write and read-only refer to the name bindings themselves -
> mutable objects can obviously still be modified for a reference that
> can't be rebound):
> Locals: naturally read/write
> Function state variables (aka default argument values): naturally
> read-only, very hard to rebind since this namespace is completely
> anonymous in normal usage
> Lexically scoped non-locals: naturally read-only, writable with
> nonlocal declaration
> Module globals: within functions in module, naturally read-only,
> writable with global declaration. At module level, naturally
> read/write. From outside the module, naturally read/write via module
> Process builtins: naturally read-only, writable via "import builtins"
> and attribute assignment
> Instance variables: in methods, naturally read/write via 'self' object
> Class variables: in instance methods, naturally read-only, writable
> via 'type(self)' or 'self.__class__'. Naturally read/write in class
> methods via 'cls', 'klass' or 'class_' object.
> Of those, I would put lexical scoping, function state variables and
> class variables in the 'shared' category - they aren't as contained as
> locals and instance variables, but they aren't as easy to access as
> module globals and process builtins, either.
I think it may be easier to classify them in terms of how they are
Cell based names spaces:
Dictionary based names spaces:
If vars() could get closures, What exactly would it do and how would
the output look?
Would it indicate which was free variables, from cell variables?
[clipped literal parts, for now]
> > While its very interesting to try to find a solution, I am also
> > concerned about what this might mean in the long term. Particularly we
> > will see more meta programming. Being able to initiate an object from
> > one or more other objects can be very nice. Python does that sort of
> > thing all over the place.
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean in your use of the term
> 'meta-programming' here. The biggest danger to my mind is that we'll
> see more true process-level globals as state on top-level functions,
> and those genuinely *can* be problematic (but also very useful, which
> is why C has them). It's really no worse than class variables, though.
I'm thinking of automated program generation. A programming language
that has a lot of hard syntax without a way to do the same things in a
dynamic way makes it harder to do that. You pretty much have to resort
to exec and eval in those cases. Or avoid those features.
> The other objection to further enhancing the power of functions to
> maintain state is that functions aren't naturally decomposable the way
> classes are - if an algorithm is written cleanly as methods on a
> class, then you can override just the pieces you need to modify while
> leaving the overall structure intact. For functions, it's much harder
> to do the same thing (hence generators, coroutines and things like the
> visitor pattern when walking data structures).
I would like very much for functions to be a bit more decomposable.
> My main counters to those objections are that:
> 1. Any feature of this new proposal can already be done with explicit
> closures or the default argument hack. While usage may increase
> slightly with an officially blessed syntax, I don't expect that to
> happen to any great extent - I'm more hoping that over time, the
> default argument hack usages would get replaced
The part I like is that it removes a part of functions signatures, which
I think are already over extended. Although, only a small part.
> 2. When an algorithm inevitably runs up against the practical limits
> of any new syntax, the full wealth of Python remains available for
> refactoring (e.g. by upgrading to a full class or closure)
I agree, any solution should be compared to an alternative non-syntax
way of doing it.
All very interesting...
More information about the Python-ideas