Python handles globals badly.

tdev at freenet.de tdev at freenet.de
Fri Sep 11 00:25:58 CEST 2015


Some notes to the "global"-keyword and the other proposals.

It has been proposed to have these six enhancements

1. optional keyword "global"  
2. switch statement
3. less restrictive indentation 
4. universal scope 
5. goto label
6- "include" script statement


with following proofs uncommented:

Each sample provided would work without global 
(or you get runtime failure while try to write a global). 
So the compiler knows the distiction between global and local already. 
Otherwise you would have to write in every function this keyword 
But this is not the case.  You write it because you need write access.
And this is an over-regulation. So, NO need for an explicit global. 
Optional ok.


Another proof about identation:
The parser can recognise identation with tabs and spaces. 
Otherwise semcicolons or brackets would be needed.
It is correct that there have to be a decision for spaces or tabs.
But sure not necessarily the exact same indentation to the right for each block.
Jus more same inserter to the right and the context is clear.


Another proof is Python itself (from Tutorial):
"Python is an ... powerful programming language. It has ... and a simple but effective approach 
to object-oriented programming. Python's elegant syntax ... together with its interpreted nature, 
make it an ideal language for scripting ... .

The proposals are all made for structual programming enhancements 
This is nothing else than having structural programming, functional programming and OO
and many more features in parallel. Why that all?
For the same reason: 
For an another type of programmers - or say: nothing more than even more flexibility.

Read also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Python
Especially sections: "incfluences from other languages"



But all proposals are more or less fully denied - for more or less no reasons.


The last statement against the proposals:
   
> "EVERYONE who suggests massive, sweeping changes says "hey, if you only
> make these changes, Python will actually become popular". It's almost
> mandatory."


Additionally, that proofs: that this is not a single meaning.
And also speaking from changes is wrong. 
Enhancements or extensions would be correct.



There is the big question:

Who is responding or has responded?  
Extreme Programmers, Python-Hardliner, Python-Evangelists, ... .
Presumably no core Python Programmers (wrting compiler and standard library stuff)

On Google groups you can currently read for this thread:
37 Authors. 152 posts. 443 views.

That is not that much for views (probably mostly from the writer's itself)

So, is this really the place where a PEP can be started?
When has a proposal to be accepted? If ten-thousands say yes?
Which ten-thousands? Who decides it?



Thanks.


More information about the Python-list mailing list