[Python-ideas] PEP 3150 (statement local namespaces) updated based on April discussion
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sun Jun 12 23:20:03 CEST 2011
On 6/12/2011 11:44 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The rationale and proposed semantics sections of PEP 3150 have been
> heavily modified based on the various discussions on the topic back in
> (Note that the PEP is still officially Deferred - this entire idea
> still intrigues me, but I'm also still not convinced it's worth the
> additional language complexity).
I tried to read this with an open mind, but I still strongly dislike it.
I think it would make Python harder to learn and read and would lead to
more confusion and questions on python-list.
I think having a different rule for function compilation makes the
proposal even worse, as people would come to expect early binding
(outside the given context) even more than now. If one does not like
default args, one can either use class instances or closures. The latter
were explicitly introduced as an alternative to using default args. Do
we really need a fourth solution to the same problem?
I do not see comprehensions, which are *expressions*, as a precedent for
out-of-order *statements*. Nested expressions are not left-to-right
either, nor are assignments: "a = b*f(c+d)".
'Given' or 'where' constructs are sometimes used in mathematical
writings, especially formula exposition, but they typically, if not
always, are isolated (like the examples in the PEP), and not part of a
code sequence. So this is notreally a precedent to me. Example:
fv = p * (1 + i/12)**t... , where
fv = present value
p = principle
i = nominal annual interest rate
t = time in months
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-ideas