Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 24 June 2018 at 06:03, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> > Given this function:
> >
> > def test():
> > a = 1
> > b = 2
> > result = [value for key, value in locals().items()]
> > return result
> >
> > what would you expect the result of calling test() to be? […]
> I'm aware of the background for this question. Is there any equivalent
> question that doesn't use locals()? The reason I ask is that I see
> locals() as "digging into implementation stuff" and sort of expect it
> to act oddly in situations like this...
My understanding of Steven's question is to give an unambiguous way to:
* Express the question “which name bindings do you expect to exist in
this local function scope, by the time of the ‘return’ statement?”.
* Avoid prejudicing the reader to expect any particular binding to be
active.
One way to do the first, at the cost of losing the second, might be
this::
def test():
a = 1
b = 2
[value for key, value in dict().items()]
print(a)
print(b)
print(key)
print(value)
and then ask “Which of those statements do you expect to fail with
NameError?”.
But I may have misunderstood some nuance of what is being asked, which
is to be expected because Steven was deliberately trying to avoid having
the reader second-guess what the purpose of the code is.
--
\ “I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. |
`\ There's a knob called ‘brightness’ but it doesn't work.” |
_o__) —Eugene P. Gallagher |
Ben Finney
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
