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.
I think Peter Hansen has answered that. Your expectations were just wrong. > In this scenario, we can see it doesn't work. To my eyes, it doesn't work > *in the way I expect* (which is highly subjective, no argument there). > Would this be a situation where it would be nice to have an exception > thrown if locals() is assigned to in a scope where it is not writable? If python were to throw an exception, it should always be thrown. But I'm the wrong one to worry about that as I didn't even find a single globals()[name] = value assignment in my scripts. I want to know a variable's name, or I put it in a dictionary. > It would also be nice if globals and locals behaved the same, differing > only in scope (which is what I expected originally anyway). But we can't > have everything, I guess :) That would mean that both would become read-only, I guess, but I don't see that happen. Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
