I don't think this proposal has any chance as long as
it's dynamically scoped.
It mightn't be so bad if it were lexically scoped,
i.e. a special way of defining a function so that
it shares the lexically enclosing scope. This
would be implementable, since the compiler has
all the necessary informat
[Guido]
> OK, now you *must* look at the Boo solution.
> http://boo.codehaus.org/Syntactic+Macros
That is an interesting solution, requiring macro writers to actually
write an AST modifier seems pretty reasonable to me. Whether we want
macros or not...
- Josiah
__
[Paul Moore]
> *YUK* I spent a long time staring at this and wondering "where did b come
> from?"
>
> You'd have to come up with a very compelling use case to get me to like this.
I couldn't have said it better.
I said it longer though. :-)
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.
[Jim Jewett]
> >> (2) Add a way to say "Make this function I'm calling use *my* locals
> >> and globals." This seems to meet all the agreed-upon-as-good use
> >> cases, but there is disagreement over how to sensibly write it. The
> >> calling function is the place that could get surprised, but p
On 4/26/05, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand this. The preferred way would be
> to just stick the keyword before the call. Using 'collapse', it
> would look like:
>
> def foo(b):
> c=a
> def bar():
> a="a1"
> collapse foo("b1")
>
>> (2) Add a way to say "Make this function I'm calling use *my* locals
>> and globals." This seems to meet all the agreed-upon-as-good use
>> cases, but there is disagreement over how to sensibly write it. The
>> calling function is the place that could get surprised, but people
>> who want thu
> (2) Add a way to say "Make this function I'm calling use *my* locals
> and globals." This seems to meet all the agreed-upon-as-good use
> cases, but there is disagreement over how to sensibly write it. The
> calling function is the place that could get surprised, but people
> who want thunks s
Michael Hudson:
> This proposal seems a bit like an effort to make generators good at
> doing something that they aren't really intended -- or dare I say
> suited? -- for.
I think it is more an effort to use the right keyword, which has
unfortunately already been claimed by generators (and li
