[Python-ideas] PEP 3155 - Qualified name for classes and functions

[Nick Coghlan]

I think you're all overthinking this. We want a notation that:
1. Makes it clear attribute access won't work
2. Indicates where the nested definition really lives
3. Gives a reasonable error message if you do try to evaluate it

"f.<locals>.g" ticks all those boxes, so it's fine.

--
Nick Coghlan (via Gmail on Android, so likely to be more terse than usual)
On Nov 6, 2011 4:02 AM, "Ron Adam" <ron3200 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 11:04 -0600, Eric Snow wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Éric Araujo <merwok at netwok.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >> I would like to propose the following PEP for discussion and, if
> > >> possible, acceptance. I think the proposal shouldn't be too
> > >> controversial (I find it quite simple and straightforward myself :-)).
> > >> [snip PEP]
> > >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > For nested functions, I too think that 'f.<locals>.g' has too many
> dots;
> > > I like '<local in f>.g' or '<f locals>.g'.
> >
> > I like it too but don't think it's too many dots.
> >
> > The function from which the locals came _could_ be rolled into the
> > brackets.  However, in the context of some object (like the class X to
> > which f belongs), 'X.f.<locals of f>.g' makes more sense in that case
> > than 'X.<locals of f>.g', since the locals is related to f and not X.
> > But, then the f is sort of redundant, so you go back to
> > 'X.f.<locals>.g', and '<locals>' is still sort of unambiguous.
> >
> > The disconnect is that <locals> is an externally anonymous namespace
> > resulting from a call, rather than bound to any external namespace
> > (like an object).  Perhaps it would be appropriate to use
> > 'X.f().<locals>.g' to make that clear.
>
> I think if you consider locals in f as an implementation detail of f's
> name space rather than a sub item of f, it's not as confusing.  It's
> better to think of locals as being part of f, rather than in f.  That is
> why <f locals> makes more sense than f.<locals>.  For example locals is
> in f's frame object, so if you follow that reasoning you get.
> f.<frame>.<locals>,  but I don't think we need all that.
>
> Hmmm...  I think it actually should be spelled...
>
>      f.<local g>
>
> Following a pattern of...
>
>      x                 object x
>      x.f               f in object x
>      x.f.<local g>     local g in f in x
>
> That's both clear and concise.
>
> Cheers,
>   Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20111106/301c8a2d/attachment.html>