Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Benjamin Kaplan:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Alf P. Steinbach <al...@start.no> wrote:
>>>
I feel that there's still something lacking in my understanding
though, like
how/where the "really actually just pure local not also global" is
defined
for function definition, but it's now just a vague feeling of something
missing, not a feeling of direct contradiction as I had when I believed
local != global.
It's because the only blocks in python that have their own scope are
classes and functions. For loops don't have their own scope- they use
the enclosing one, which in this case is globals.
Thanks, but hey, contradiction: you mention globals as an "enclosing"
scope, i.e. that a module can have a scope, while stating that only
classes and functions have their own scope (so, would a module have it's
not own scope?).
module scope == global scope
That is, there is nothing higher than module scope. (So, yes, global is
a slight misnomer... in Python it means 'global to a module'.)
~Ethan~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
