On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, <random...@fastmail.us> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015, at 11:55, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Ah, that makes sense. It's writing into the dict that is created and >> > returned by locals(), but not actually updating the frame locals which >> > are the source of truth. >> >> Yeah... but it only makes sense to people who understand the >> implementation. It's certainly not a logical and sane behaviour that >> would be worth documenting and using. > > What else would you document? Reading from them is a reasonable thing to > do, and works. Writing to them is a reasonable thing to want to do, but > won't work, so you need to document that it doesn't work.
Documenting that "it doesn't work" seems fine. Documenting the specific behaviour (that it gives you a sort of "shadow" locals, into which you can write, but which won't persist past the execution of that block of code) seems pointless. Especially since this behaviour is implementation-dependent anyway. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
