From: Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> On 24 June 2018 at 06:03, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > I'd like to run a quick survey. There is no right or wrong answer, since > this is about your EXPECTATIONS, not what Python actually does. > > 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? Is that the > result you think is most useful? In your opinion, is this a useful > feature, a misfeature, a bug, or "whatever"? > > I'm only looking for answers for Python 3. (The results in Python 2 are > genuinely weird :-)
My immediate reaction was "that's not something I'd want to do, so I don't care (but I've a feeling it would be weird). On thinking some more, I decided that [1, 2] made sense (but I still didn't actually care). After reading Chris Angelico's analysis, I went back to my first opinion (that I don't care, but I suspect it might be weird). 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... Paul --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
