Nick Coghlan wrote:
In current Python, ordinary named references can refer to one of 4 namespaces:
... - closure reference (stored in a cell object by the function that defined it, kept alive after the frame is recycled by references from still living inner functions that need it) ...
I think you're mixing up concepts and implementation here a bit. Cells are an implementation detail. What's important is which *namespace* the name is referring to: - A 'global' declaration makes it refer to the module-level namespace. - A 'nonlocal' declaration makes it refer to some namespace in between local and module-level (there may be more than one of these, so I wouldn't say that there are only 4 namespaces). Now, while the *value* of your proposed new kind of variable would be stored as part of the function's closure, its *name* would be part of the function's *local* namespace. Consider this: i = 88 def f(): nonlocal i = 17 print i def g(): nonlocal i = 42 print i f() g() print i I'm assuming you intend that the two i's here would have nothing to do with each other, or with the i in the enclosing scope, so that the output from this would be 17 42 88 rather than 42 42 42 So, your proposed use of 'nonlocal' would actually be declaring a name to be *local*. That strikes me as weird and perverse. NOBODY-expects-the-spanish-nonlocal-declaration!-ly, Greg