"Dino Viehland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
def a():
x = 4
y = 2
def b():
print y, locals()
print locals()
b()
a()
in CPython prints:
{'y': 2, 'x': 4, 'b': <function b at 0x020726F0>}
2 {'y': 2}
I'm wondering if it's intentional that these don't print dictionaries w/
the same contents or if it's more an accident of the implementation. In
other words would it be reasonable for IronPython to promote all of the
locals of a into b's dictionary when both a and b call locals?
==========================================
This version
def a():
x = 4
y = 2
def b():
print y, locals()
print locals()
return b
a()()
has essentially the same output, as it should. Do you really want the
binding of 'x' and 'b' to survive the a's return? I see no reason why a's
call of locals() should affect this either way. Which is to say, why the
compilation of b should be affected by the code that follows it.
This version also has the same output
def a():
x = 4
def b():
print y, locals()
y = 2
print locals()
return b
a()()
whereas this omits y from a's output, but not b's:
def a():
x = 4
def b():
print y, locals()
print locals()
y = 2
return b
a()()
and would also if b were called instead of returned, as in your version.
So it would not make too much sense for the two printouts to match.
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
