Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/11/05, Eyal Lotem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > locals()['x'] = 1 # Quietly fails! > > Replaced by: > > frame.x = 1 # Raises error > > What about the possibility of making this hypothetic frame object an > indexable, such that frame[0] is the current scope, frame[1] is the > calling scope, etc.? On the same lines, what about closure[0] for the > current frame, while closure[1] resolves to the closure the function > was defined in? These would ensure that you could reliably access any > namespace you would need, without nasty stack tricks and such, and > would make working around some of the limitation of the closures, when > you have such a need. One might even consider a __resolve__ to be > defined in any namespace, allowing all the namespace resolution rules > to be overridden by code at any level.
-1000 If you want a namespace, create one and pass it around. If the writer of a function or method wanted you monkeying around with a namespace, they would have given you one to work with. As for closure monkeywork, you've got to be kidding. Closures in Python are a clever and interesting way of keeping around certain things, but are actually unnecessary with the existance of class and instance namespaces. Every example of a closure can be re-done as a class/instance, and many end up looking better. - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
