Peter Hansen wrote: > Caleb Hattingh wrote: >> I am convinced now that locals() doesn't work as (I) expected. Steven >> says there was some or other reason why locals() as used in this >> context is not writable - Do you know why this is? I really do not >> like guidelines like "may not work", "is unreliable" and so on. >> Perhaps this is a character flaw, but I really do like to know what >> works, when it works, and when it doesn't work. > > Those who've talked about it being "unreliable" are misstating > the Rule that you are looking for. I'll quote it below, so > that you aren't left in this unfortunate state of limbo: > > The Rule of locals() > Updating locals() should not be done. Treat the > return value of locals() as read-only. Never try > to update it. End of story. > > Anything that appears to suggest that locals() might sometimes > actually be writable is not really happening. Look the other > way. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And > especially, whatever else you do, don't let the PSU se
I agree. But much of the confusion stems from interpreter experiments like >>> locals()["a"] = 42 >>> a 42 That would go away if locals() returned an ignore-write proxy where the global and local scope are identical. The ability to "just try it" is an asset. Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
