On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
>> [..]
>> >>
>> >> I think PEP 550 is sufficient to allow implementing all
>> >> your proposed APIs (and that if it isn't, that's a bug in PEP 550).
>> >
>> >
>> > That's not true either. The LocalContext-based semantics introduces
>> > scope
>> > barriers that affect *all* variables. You might get close by putting
>> > just
>> > one variable in a LogicalContext and then nest them, but PEP 550 does
>> > not
>> > allow this in all cases. With the addition of PEP 521 and some trickery,
>> > it
>> > might.
>>
>> I think you have a wrong idea about PEP 550 specification.  I
>> recommend you to reread it carefully, otherwise we can't have a
>> productive discussion here.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, by LocalContext I meant LogicalContext, and by "nesting" them, I
> meant stacking them. It is in fact nesting in terms of value scopes.

I don't actually care if you use the latest terminology.  You seem to
have a wrong idea about how PEP 550 really works (and its full
semantics), because things you say here about it don't make any sense.