Le Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:12:17 +0000, Mark Dickinson <dickinsm@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:22 PM, spir <denis.spir@free.fr> wrote:

...

Hello,

I wonder why there is no difference in syntax between binding and rebinding. Obviously, the semantics is not at all the same, for humans as well as for the interpreter: * Binding: create a name, bind a value to it. * Rebinding: change the value bound to the name.

I see several advantages for this distinction and no drawback.

How would you write code like:

my_result = [] for item in items: a = <some intermediate result computed from item> ... my_result.append(<something computed from a>)

where a is bound for the first time on the first iteration of the loop, and rebound on all subsequent iterations?

Yes, good point! That's probably a reason why in some languages loops create local scopes/namespaces. In which case the issue disappears, as 'a' is newly created for each iteration. An incremental value (e.g. a sum) is first defined/initialized outside the loop instead. I takes this as different, but related, issue; because the intention and meaning here is really to have an 'a' for each iteration, matching each item. It is not a value that will evoluate along with the loop cycles, as a sum would: it is not rebinding. Conceptually, 'a' is thus a loop-local name. Maybe a special case for loops, where such "utility short-life names" are common? Not very nice. If "a=..." is allowed even when 'a' exists, and recreates the name, then a distinction with rebinding still holds, in the sense that explicit rebinding is possible (including in non-local scope). But we lose the side-effect of getting a NameError in case the programmer errorneously types an existing name.

Mark

------ la vida e estranya ------ la vida e estranya