Replacement for keyword 'global' good idea? (e.g. 'modulescope' or 'module' better?)

Ron Adam rrr at ronadam.com
Tue Aug 16 20:31:05 CEST 2005


Antoon Pardon wrote:

> I disagree here. The problem with "global", at least how it is
> implemented in python, is that you only have access to module
> scope and not to intermediate scopes.
> 
> I also think there is another possibility. Use a symbol to mark
> the previous scope. e.g. x would be the variable in local scope.
> @.x would be the variable one scope up. @. at .x would be the
> variable two scopes up etc.

Looks like what you want is easier introspection and the ability to get 
the parent scope from it in a simple way.  Maybe something like a 
builtin '__self__' name that contains the information, then a possible 
short 'sugar' method to access it.   '__self__.__parent__', would become 
@ in your example and '__self__.__perent__.__self__.__parent__' could 
become @. at .

Somthing other than '@' would be better I think.  A bare leading '.' is 
another possiblity.  Then '..x' would be the x two scopes up.

This isn't the same as globals. Globals work the way they do because if 
they weren't automatically visible to all objects in a module you 
wouldn't be able to access any builtin functions or class's without 
declaring them as global (or importing them) in every function or class 
that uses them.

Cheers,
Ron















More information about the Python-list mailing list