On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:13 AM Alexis Masson <a.masson555@ntymail.com> wrote:

This, in addition with locals().update(_), feels much better to me. Furthermore, it would allow other string-like classes, such as bytes or bytearray, to use that feature.

But locals().update() isn't a supported operation, except in the
situation where locals() is globals(). So what you're suggesting would
work fine in the REPL but not in any production usage.

ChrisA

That surprises me. I put a quick test to check :

def f() :
    print(locals())
    locals().update(dict(a=3))
    print(locals())

f()

prints :

================= RESTART: ****/test.py ================
{}
{'a': 3}
>>>

So maybe the specs don't force it, but under the current implementation, it seems to work.

I agree that it's bad practice anyway; a correct solution to the original question might surely involve something akin to :for key, value in parsed.items() :

for key, value in parsed.items() :

exec(f"{key} = {value}")

I like the idea of needing to format a string in the process of parsing another ;)

Anyway, back on topic !