Zack> Maybe "global foo from <function_name>" ?
Sounds just about like the "global foo in named_scope" (where "named_scope" means enclosing function) that I described earlier. I like "in" better than "from" because it tells you more clearly that you are messing with the variable in-place, not making a copy of it into the local scope.
Zack> Or, "from function_name global foo" is consistent with import, Zack> albeit somewhat weird.
That reads a bit weird to me. The nice thing about the other way is that "global foo" without any qualifiers means the same thing it does today. There's also no reason to use the from form as "global foo in function" doesn't imply that you will refer to foo as "function.foo".
Zack> I would never use this feature; I avoid nested functions entirely. Zack> However, as long as we're talking about this stuff, I wish I could Zack> write "global foo" at module scope and have that mean "this Zack> variable is to be treated as global in all functions in this Zack> module".
I've never actually used nested scopes either, nor have I ever felt the urge. Maybe it has something to do with not having done much recent programming in a language before Python which supported them. (Pascal does, but my last Pascal experience was nearly 20 years ago.)