"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED],,.edu> wrote:
> "Hendrik van Rooyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | I am relatively new on this turf, and from what I have seen so far, it
> | would not bother me at all to tie a name's type to its first use, so that
> | the name can only be bound to objects of the same type as the type
> | of the object that it was originally bound to.
> |
> | But maybe I am missing the point of dynamism.
> |
> | Would an implementation of the above break lots of stuff in practice?
>
> For function local variables, if you mean 'originally bound to' in the
> current call invocation, that would sometimes be ok (and that is sort of
> what Psycho does). But if you mean in the original binding in the first
> call invocation, then that would cripple many functions.
>
Errr - I was thinking a bit simplistic - I know I can write:
def f(x):
for y in x:
print y # using print here as short for doing something complicated
And that would currently "work" with any iterable, as x could
currently be anything.
It seems that such functions are the problem, as something like this:
x = [1,2,3,4,5]
for y in x:
print y
does not have the same hassle for x, but can shift the problem to y:
x = [1,2,3,4,(1,2)]
for y in x:
print y
I can't see an easy way to put the patient back into his straight jacket.
Makes you want to use pre defined globals...
- Hendrik
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
