[Python-Dev] statically nested scopes

[Tim Peters]

[Guido]
> [Jeremy and Tim argue about what to do about write access for
> variables at intermediate levels of nesting, neither local nor
> module-global.]
>
> I'll risk doing a pronouncement, even though I know that Jeremy (and
> maybe also Tim?) disagree.
>
> You don't need "write access" (in the sense of being able to assign)
> for variables at the intermediate scopes, so there is no need for a
> syntax to express this.

I can live with that!  Reference-only access to intermediate scopes would
address 99% of current gripes.  Of course, future gripes will shift to that
there's no rebinding access.  If we have to support that someday too, my
preferred way of spelling it in Python requires explicit new syntax, so
adding that later would not break anything.

> Assignments are to local variables (normally) or to module-globals (when
> 'global' is used).  Use references search for a local, then for a local of
> the containing function definition, then for a local in its container,

The Pascal standard coined "closest-containing scope" to describe this
succinctly, and I recommend it for clarity and brevity.

> and so forth, until it hits the module globals, and then finally it looks
> for a builtin.
>
> We can argue over which part of this is done statically and which part
> is done dynamically: currently, locals are done dynamically and
> everything else is done statically.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but to the extent that I think
I grasp it, I believe it's backwards:  locals are static today but
everything else is dynamic (and not in the sense of "dynamic scoping", but
in the operational sense of "requires runtime search to resolve non-local
names", while local names are fully resolved at compile-time today (but in
the absence of "exec" and "import *")).

what's-in-a-name?-a-rose-in-any-other-scope-may-not-smell-as-
     sweet-ly y'rs  - tim