Update to PEP 227 (static scoping)

[Aahz Maruch]

In article <m3r90pbtpo.fsf at chinon.cnrs-orleans.fr>,
Konrad Hinsen  <hinsen at cnrs-orleans.fr> wrote:
>Jeremy Hylton <jeremy at alum.mit.edu> writes:
>>
>> It would have to be -N, because Python is already lexically scoped.
>> The question of the moment is whether the scopes should nest.
>
>There is one thing that I have missed in PEP 227: a motivation for the
>proposed change. All I can find is the statement that other languages
>have nested scopes. That sounds like a valid reason when designing a
>new language, but is it sufficient to modify an existing language in a
>way that risks breaking working code? I can't remember seeing
>excessive complaints about Python's current scoping rules.

You've missed all the lambda-whiners.  PEP 227 doesn't quite come out
and say so explicitly, but you'll note that the abstract specifically
mentions lambda as an issue.
-- 
                      --- Aahz (Copyright 2001 by aahz at pobox.com)

Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het    <*>     http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I used to have a .sig but I found it impossible to please everyone..."  --SFJ