afair you told yourself that
var = <statement> where: <suite>
translates to:
def unique_name(): <suite> return <statement> var = unique_name()
in this case class gets unique_name() function? is it that bad?
No, I wasn't thinking clearly and saw problems that weren't there.
However, you're right that the semantic definition should include unbinding the unique name after the statement finishes. E.g. for assignments:
def unique_name():
<suite>
return <expr>
<target> = unique_name()
del unique_nameanyway I'd prefer to change semantics deeper. adding new statement-only scope and adding our suite-definitions there.
A new scope essentially *is* a nested function :)
My main purpose with the nested function equivalent is just to make the intended semantics clear - whether an implementation actually _does_ things that way is immaterial.
Cheers, Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
