loop scope

[Mel Wilson]

In article <tyf7jxm49ap.fsf at pcepsft001.cern.ch>,
Jacek Generowicz <jacek.generowicz at cern.ch> wrote:
>Imagine we have a "nested" keyword which is similar to "global", only
>it ensures that the name is found in the nearest enclosing scope. Now
>the above problem could be resolved by defining "inc" as follows.
>
>    def make():
>        x = 0
>        ...
>        def inc(n):
>            nested x
>            x = x+n
>        ...
>
>Works just like global would have done, only it is aware of the
>other socpes between local and global.
>
>> "Greg Ewing (using news.cis.dfn.de)" <wmwd2zz02 at sneakemail.com> writes:
>>
>> > It wouldn't do to make the whole (non-comprehension)
>> > for-loop a new scope, because that would make any
>> > variables assigned within the loop body local as well.
>
>Not if you have a "nested" keyword at your disposal.
>
>What situations would this not cover ?

   Far too few.  After the `nested x` statement comes
`nested nested x` and `nested nested nested x`, with the
accumulating maintenance headaches.  All so that programmers
can choose data names badly.

   Almost like running into `continue 17` within a nest of
loops.

        Regards.        Mel.