On 11 September 2012 23:22, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Joshua Landau > <joshua.landau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If I were to use internal double-underscored names of the form > > __BS_internalname__, would the compiled code be able to assume that > no-one > > had overwritten these variables and never will, even through modification > > of, say, locals(). I ask because Python's docs seem to specify that > double > > sided double underscored names are strictly for Python and its special > > names. > > Interesting. If you're compiling your code to Python, you may be able > to, if necessary, adorn a user's variable name(s). I'd be inclined to > use a single underscore notation like _BS_internalname_ and then, in > the event of a collision (which would be incredibly unlikely unless > someone's fiddling), rename the offending variable to > _BS_BS_something_ - which of course you'd never yourself use. Would > that serve? >
Well, the problem is that a lot of collisions aren't predictable. "locals()['foo'] = 2", for example. If it weren't for Python's annoying flexibility* I would definitely do something very close to what you suggest. Remember that "locals()" isn't Python's only introspection tool. How about "from foo import *"? I could just make the claim "You use non-explicitly declared names and you pay the price", but that seems... less nice. *Being "annoying" is how I'm pretty sure I can get inline function definitions working, though, so I shouldn't give it too much rap...
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
