dmq at gain.com
Sat Mar 20 03:55:48 CET 2004
On 19 Mar 2004 12:52:08 -0800, danb_83 at yahoo.com (Dan Bishop) wrote:
>Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at nospam.uci.edu> wrote in message news:<c3d4r8$gho$2 at news.service.uci.edu>...
>> > One way to avoid this problem is to have an explicit scope-creating
>> > construct instead.
>> > def foo(a):
>> > scope outer:
>> > a = 3
>> > scope inner:
>> > a = 4
>> > print a # prints 4
>> > print outer.a # prints 3
>> > print foo.a # prints the function parameter
>> > print a # inner.a is out of scope, so prints 3
>> > foo.b = 5 # Creates a new function-scope variable.
>> > print b # prints 5
>> Ick. Thank god Python doesn't seem to be heading in this direction.
>I agree. Just because this was my idea doesn't mean I have to like it ;-)
>I'm satified with the scope rules the way they are, except for list comprehensions.
There is one small change I would make. Nested scopes should apply to
*any* nested code, including nested classes. This would make the
rules much simpler and easy to teach.
More information about the Python-list