Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Martelli wrote: > > One thing I'd like to see in namespaces is _chaining_ -- keeping each > > namespace separate but having lookups proceed along the chain. (The > > best semantics for _bindings_ as opposed to lookups isn't clear though). > > Hmm, so if it doesn't find it in the current namespace, it looks in the > parent?
Yep. > For bindings, you could just go with standard Python semantics - normal > name binding always happens in the innermost scope, so binding a name in a > namespace should happen in the directly referenced namespace. Then you can > shadow names from outer scopes, and later regain access to them using > 'del'. ...which you can't do in "standard Python semantics" - if a name is local, it's local throughout. You can't do that with a namespace object, which is why I think the best semantics for bindings in that case isn't all that clear. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
