I'm pretty sure the debate about braces defining scope in Python has long-since ended... -- Ryan (ライアン) Yoko Shimomura, ryo (supercell/EGOIST), Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else https://refi64.com/ On April 28, 2018 9:37:57 PM Ken Hilton <kenlhilton@gmail.com> wrote:

...

local { m = re.match(regexp, line) if m: print(m.group(0)) }

Or how about making "local" a pseudo-statement of sorts?

local (m=re.match(exp, string)) { if m: print(m.group(0)) }

The grammar would be as follows:

local_stmt = "local" "(" local_assignments [ "," local_assignments ... ] ")" "{" BLOCK "}" local_assignments = NAME "=" EXPR

There would be no question about the scope of things in BLOCK - the variables would disappear after the closing "}". I say "pseudo"-statement because I'm wondering if something like this would be legal:

things = list(map(lambda m: local (gp1=m.group(1)) { result = gp1 + ''.join(reversed(gp1)) result += gp1.replace('some', 'thing') return result }, re.finditer(exp, string)))

I'm thinking specifically about the "lambda m: local (...) {...}". If that was made legal, it would finally allow for full-fledged anonymous functions. Indeed, the "local" (statement?) itself is actually almost equivalent to defining an anonymous function and executing it immediately, i.e. this:

(lambda x=5: x*x)()

would be equivalent to this:

local (x=5) { return x * x }

both evaluating to 25.

Just some random thoughts!

Sincerely, Ken ​ Hilton​ ;

---------- _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/