Sept. 28, 2011
10:46 p.m.
On 9/28/2011 5:57 PM, Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
Terry Reedy dixit (2011-09-27, 21:17):
defining a function inside a loop
Insert 'does not', which somehow got omitted or deleted.
magically causes define-time binding of names in the body.
No, it does not cause such a binding.
Of course not, as I have said many times over the last decade plus, most recently just 4 hours earlier (at 17:10), when I said "People are assuming [wrongly, when using a local name that matches an outer enclosing loop name] that 'i' is immediately bound to its 'current' value, just like default args." Sorry for the confusing omission. My intention was to list this as a delusion, not as a fact. -- Terry Jan Reedy