Python handles globals badly.
ian.g.kelly at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 18:27:57 CEST 2015
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, <random832 at fastmail.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015, at 11:55, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Ah, that makes sense. It's writing into the dict that is created and
>>> > returned by locals(), but not actually updating the frame locals which
>>> > are the source of truth.
>>> Yeah... but it only makes sense to people who understand the
>>> implementation. It's certainly not a logical and sane behaviour that
>>> would be worth documenting and using.
>> What else would you document? Reading from them is a reasonable thing to
>> do, and works. Writing to them is a reasonable thing to want to do, but
>> won't work, so you need to document that it doesn't work.
> Documenting that "it doesn't work" seems fine. Documenting the
> specific behaviour (that it gives you a sort of "shadow" locals, into
> which you can write, but which won't persist past the execution of
> that block of code) seems pointless. Especially since this behaviour
> is implementation-dependent anyway.
It's documented in the standard library docs:
I think that's probably sufficient.
More information about the Python-list