On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:27:55 -0400 Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah.. I like TaskContext when it's applied to asynchronous code. It > doesn't really work for generators because we never refer to > generators as tasks. > > Out of what was proposed so far to replace Logical Context: > > 1. DynamicContext: close to "dynamic scoping", but tries to avoid > mentioning "scopes". There are only a few languages where dynamic > scoping is implemented, so people are generally not aware of it. > > 2. ContextFrame and all frame-related names: implies that EC is > somehow implemented on top of frames or is frame-specific (which is > not always true). > > 3. ImplicitContext: covers one specific property observed from > specific examples. Context in PEP 550 is managed explicitly in some > cases. There are many use cases when API users will be working with it > explicitly too (to wrirte/read data from it). FWIW I believe that > "ExplicitContext" would be more accurate than "ImplicitContext". > > 4. LocalContext: we use "local" to describe local variables and > scoping in Python, we want to avoid any confusion here. > > 5. TaskContext: works for asynchronous tasks, but not for generators. > > I don't think that replacing LogicalContext with any name in this list > will make any improvement.
I think you have a point. Though every time I want to type "logical context" it seems my fingers slip and type "local context" instead :-) Now remains the question of why the logical context stack is named "execution context" and not "logical context stack" (or "logical context chain" to keep the ChainMap analogy) :-) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
