On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 6:22:45 AM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:12 am, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 10:06:00 PM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:32 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: > >> > >> > Are not the contents of the scope and the shape of the scope different > >> > things? > >> > >> > >> What does "the shape of the scope" mean? > >> > >> Scopes don't have a shape -- they aren't geometric objects. So I'm afraid > >> I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make. > > > > Ok I was speaking quasi metaphorically > > If you have some non-metaphors please tell! > > I think that by "shape" of the scope, you mean "some identifier or > description which identifies the scope" -- e.g. "globals", "builtins", > function foo, function bar, etc.
No I want to talk of a higher level of collectivity than (what you are calling) *one* scope Something analogous to: a = [1,2,3] b = [[1,2,3]] c = [1,[2,3]] d = [1,[2],3] “a,b,c,d have the same stuff, shaped (or whatever verb you like) differently” eg How would you explain that with e = ["p", "q", "r"] a and e are same and a and b are same with the two ‘sames’ being different? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
