[me]
I've never liked this very much, mostly because it breaks simplicity: the idea that a namespace is a mapping from names to values (e.g. {"limit": 100, "doit":
, ...}) is beautifully simple, while the idea of inserting an extra level of indirection, no matter how powerful, is much murkier.
[Jim F]
How so? It doesn't change the mapping semantics.
My assumption is that in your version, the dictionary would contain
special <object binding> objects which then would contain the
referenced objects. E.g. {"limit":
Again, it would also make function global variable access faster and cleaner in some ways.
But I have other plans for that (if the optional static typing stuff ever gets implemented).
however it would break a considerable amount of old code, I think.
Really? I wonder. I bet it would break alot less old code that other recent changes.
Oh? Name some changes that broke a lot of code? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)