global and nonlocal are different specifically because they do different
things. Yes, there is a reason why nonlocal stops at the first scope up -
because that's what it exists to do.
On Mon Feb 03 2014 at 12:28:42 PM, Manuel Cerón
Hello,
The 'global' and 'nonlocal' statements serve very similar purposes. They both allow to rebind names in an outer scope. While 'nonlocal' allows to rebind a name in the closest outer scope, *except* the global module scope, 'global' is used for the later case.
Is there a reason why 'nonlocal' has to stop at the scope immediately after the global module scope? If 'nonlocal' could continue until the global scope, then it would become (almost) a generalized case of 'global'. Having both statements goes against the "There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to do it" principle. It's also confusing for beginners and people used to a functional style.
I think 'nonlocal' should be changed to support all the enclosing scopes, including the global module scope, and the 'global' statement should be marked as deprecated.
There is one specific use case that breaks though, which is rebinding to global names from a deep function skipping names in the middle, for example:
x = 'global' def outer1(): x = 'outer1' def outer2(): global x x = 'outer2' # binds the global module name
But you know "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules".
My apologizes if this topic was already discussed in the past.
Manuel. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/