[Python-ideas] Tweaking closures and lexical scoping to include the function being defined
p.f.moore at gmail.com
Mon Sep 26 16:24:49 CEST 2011
On 26 September 2011 14:47, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26 September 2011 12:34, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>>> So, your proposed use of 'nonlocal' would actually be declaring
>>>> a name to be *local*. That strikes me as weird and perverse.
>>> Ah, but it *wouldn't* be local, that's the point - it would be stored
>>> on the function rather than on the frame, and hence be shared across
>> Hmm, its lifetime is non-local, but the visibility is still local. My
>> instincts associate the word "(non-)local" with visibility rather than
>> If you want a bikeshed to colour in, maybe "persistent" is a better
>> keyword for this:
>> def counter():
>> persistent n as 1
>> n += 1
> Adding new keywords is a big, big step that demands a compelling
> justification. Now that I have come up with a way to make this
> syntactic sugar for existing usage of nonlocal rather than a new
> concept, I flatly oppose introduction of a new name for something
> which is, at a fundamental level, just a variation on existing
> functionality. I'd rather continue with the status quo indefinitely if
> people truly find this variant intolerable.
I agree entirely. My point here wasn't to suggest that this needs a
new keyword, but rather that the proposal uses an unnatural keyword to
avoid needing a new keyword.
Your argument that this is a simple extension of the semantics of
"nonlocal" is reasonable when viewing nonlocal in terms of lifetimes.
My contention is that most people view nonlocal in terms of visibility
(and in that view, the two uses of nonlocal are jarringly dissimilar).
> It may be easier to turn things around and specifically look at it
> from the "syntactic sugar" point of view:
> # Current syntax
> def _outer(): # Boilerplate
> VAR = EXPR
> def FUNC(): # Real function name is hidden
> nonlocal VAR # VAR repeated
> # Do stuff with VAR, including rebinding it
> return f # Boilerplate
> FUNC = _outer() # Boilerplate and FUNC repeated
> Most of that code is noise: the interesting aspects are that:
> 1. There is a function called FUNC() available for use
> 2. VAR survives across invocations of FUNC()
> 3. At the first invocation of FUNC(), the initial value of VAR will be EXPR
> So, let's offer a syntax that just includes those 3 pieces of
> interesting information without the boilerplate:
> def FUNC(): # Function of interest is not hidden in a nested scope
> nonlocal VAR from EXPR # Shared variable and initial value
> # Do stuff with VAR
I have no problem with the contention that this would be useful.
Minor, as you concede at the start of the thread, but certainly
I'm certainly bikeshedding here over the name of the keyword. But I
think I'm arguing that green is the wrong colour for this stop sign,
because people will misinterpret it, whereas you are arguing it's a
great colour because we have this tin of green paint here, and the
paint shop's closed. (End of overwrought analogy :-))
> Is anyone going to *guess* what that means without looking it up?
> Probably not. But are they going to *forget* what it means once they
> learn it? Also probably not.
> "I can guess what this means without reading the docs or having
> someone explain it to me" is setting the bar too high for what a
> single keyword can possibly hope to convey. The bar needs to be
> whether or not it serves as a useful mnemonic to recall the
> functionality once a user already know what means. For me, 'nonlocal'
> fits that bill, especially when the feature is described as syntactic
> sugar for a somewhat common use case for the existing lexical scoping
But readability matters, and I worry that this isn't "readable". Maybe
the fact that neither of us is Dutch is relevant here, too :-)
More information about the Python-ideas