This is becoming too much politics.

...

...

...

...

...

"TW" == Thomas Wouters thomas@xs4all.net writes:

TW> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:29:36PM -0500, Andrew Kuchling wrote:

...

...

Let's not waffle. If nested scopes are worth doing, they're worth breaking code.

TW> I'm sorry, but that's bull -- I mean, I disagree TW> completely. Nested scopes *are* a nice feature, but if we can't TW> do them without breaking code in weird ways, we shouldn't, or at TW> least *not yet*. I am still uneasy by the restrictions seemingly TW> created just to facilitate the implementation issues of nested TW> scopes, but I could live with them if they had been generating TW> warnings at least one release, preferably more.

A note of clarification seems important here: The restrictions are not being introduced to simplify the implementation. They're being introduced because there is no sensible meaning for code that uses import * and nested scopes with free variables. There are two possible meanings, each plausible and neither satisfying.

I think that

y=3 def f(): exec "y=2" def g() return y return g()

with f() returning 2 would make sense (given python dynamic nature). But it is not clear if we can reach consensus on the this or another semantic. (Implementing this would be ugly, but this is not the point).

On the other hand just saying that new feature X make code Y (previously valid) meaningless and so the unique solution is to discard Y as garbage, is something that cannot be sold for cheap. I have the feeling that this is the *point*.

regards, Samuele Pedroni.