Now I want reflecting the latest answers:
I have the position of a high-level view
(cause of lack of Python knowledge internals and compiler stuff,
but also cause I think a language should be as far as possible
user-friendly without knowing too much internals, and yes
clearly cause of knowing OO-languages where I do not need
such code-contamination)
So, my high-level understanding of the "global"-keyword so far is:
Give write access to a global var if this is set to this var
inside a current code block.
And this specific syntax construction is probably defined not cause it
is really needed but cause it is assumed to help the developer
avoiding mistakes, which I think is too much over-regulation.
But from the answers given I maybe have to rethink about the
global keyword. It seems to be an absolute need from low-level point of view
- meaning the designer had no other choice as to invent the keyword "global":
Two main reasons for the need of keyword "global" have been posted:
Compiler -
Python compiler or compiler at all cannot hide this from the developer?
(It seems really a scripting problem. PHP has it, LUA has it vice versa,
...)
Although I cannot really believe it, that technical reasons lead to this
design.
E.g recognizing if it is local or global:
If this would be under the developer responsibility than this
is simply achieved by giving well-written var names.
And a compiler can surely recognize if a defined var xxx outside
is not a var yyy inside a function.
Or does anyone really name a global var xxx and a function var xxx?
I am sure no one at all will do it. I dont want read such a code.
Function calls (?) -
I have to admit I did not really get the problematic from
the sample provided by Chris Angelico.
What I can see or mean to see is:
it has nothing to do with global-keyword from the high level point of
view: give write access, probably to the vars word and otherword.
And yes, I see the vars independant.
And cause you set no "global" they are simple local vars
(readable+writeable)
This is more about let me assume function call stack and
closures things(?) which I think is handled automatically.
But as said - here I cannot really respond.
This have to be answered from more experienced users.
My conclusion:
--------------
My intention was to bring this into discussion and see what comes out and
see what are the reasons for this keyword.
I am not the user who can open the PEP, but maybe the community out decides to
do so.
But if this two problems really exists from low-level point of view, then ok,
there is no other way than to use this keyword "global". I have not the
experience to answer that. I can accept low-level problems if so.
But then I ask you from high-level point of view
(if my high level view is correct at all):
Would you remove this keyword if it would be technically possible
or is good for you from high level point of view to have a keyword "global"?
My answer is clear: remove it.
[The same e.g. with switch statement: add it]
Then this is my question now!
Thanks.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
