Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On 2006-07-06, Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>>AP> Aren't we now talking about implementation details? Sure the compilor
>>>AP> can set things up so that local names are bound to the local scope and
>>>AP> so the same code can be used. But it seems somewhere was made the
>>>AP> decision that b was in the local scope without looking for that b in
>>>AP> the scopes higher up.
>>
>>Yes, as I (and others) have already said several times: an assignment to a
>>variable inside a function body (but not an assignment to an attribute or
>>part of an object) without a global declaration makes that variable a local
>>variable. That is not an implementation detail; it is part of the language
>>definition.
>
>
> You seem to think I didn't understand this.
And he's right, cf below.
(snip)
> Could you maybe clarify what problem we are discussing? All I wrote
> was that with an assignment the search for the lefthand variable
> depends on whether the lefthand side is a simple variable or
> more complicated.
You're obviously clueless. Which would not be a problem if you did not
refuse to first aknowledge the fact then take appropriate actions.
> Sure people may prefer to speak about (re)binding
> vs mutating variables, but just because I didn't use the prefered terms,
If you refuse to understand that there are pretty good reasons to use
the appropriate semantic, that's your problem, but then no one can help
you.
> starting to doubt my understanding of the language, seems a bit
> premature IMO.
I do not 'doubt', I'm 111% confident.
> I'm sure there are areas where my understanding of
> the language is shaky, metaclasses being one of them, but understanding
> how names are searched doesn't seem to be one of them.
It is, obviously.
And you're definitively a crank.
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])"
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
