Why functional Python matters

[Alexander Schmolck]

Jp Calderone <exarkun at intarweb.us> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 11:17:26PM -0000, Dave Benjamin wrote:
> > In article <yfs7k9vcu2p.fsf at black132.ex.ac.uk>, Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 
> > >> keyword-argument trick wasn't really that bad, once you got used to it. In
> > >> any case, with dynamic scoping, this problem has completely disappeared.
> > >                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > not quite.
> > 
> > Am I using the wrong terminology here? I'm specifically talking about the
> > named-argument hack to get around Python's previous lack of nested scopes.
> > This specific problem, as far as I know, is gone now. Am I missing something?
> > 
> 
>   I think you meant "partial lexical scoping" ;)  Dynamic scoping is what
> Python used to do.  Since it isn't quite lexical scoping, it's best to just
> stick with the term "nested scopes".

Aargh. No! You also have a look at:

http://www.supelec.fr/docs/cltl/clm/node43.html

'as