On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:52 PM, David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:

I know. I elided including the nonexistent `nonlocals()` in there. But it *should* be `lngb()`.  Or call it scope(). :-)

On Aug 10, 2015 10:09 AM, "Steven D'Aprano" <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 06:14:18PM -0700, David Mertz wrote:

[...]
> That said, there *is* one small corner where I believe f-strings add
> something helpful to the language.  There is no really concise way to spell:
>
>   collections.ChainMap(locals(), globals(), __builtins__.__dict__).

I think that to match the normal name resolution rules, nonlocals()
needs to slip in there between locals() and globals(). I realise that
there actually isn't a nonlocals() function (perhaps there should be?).

> If we could spell that as, say `lgb()`, that would let str.format() or
> %-formatting pick up the full "what's in scope".  To my mind, that's the
> only good thing about the f-string idea.

I like the concept, but not the name. Initialisms tend to be hard
to remember and rarely self-explanatory. How about scope()?

--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/mertz%40gnosis.cx

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/wes.turner%40gmail.com