Nested scopes, and augmented assignment

[Tim N. van der Leeuw]

Hi,

The following might be documented somewhere, but it hit me unexpectedly
and I couldn't exactly find this in the manual either.

Problem is, that I cannot use augmented assignment operators in a
nested scope, on variables from the outer scope:

PythonWin 2.4.3 (#69, Mar 29 2006, 17:35:34) [MSC v.1310 32 bit
(Intel)] on win32.
Portions Copyright 1994-2004 Mark Hammond ([email protected]) -
see 'Help/About PythonWin' for further copyright information..... def nestedfunc(bar):
.... print bar, ';', localvar
.... localvar += 1
.... localvar=0
.... nestedfunc('bar')
....bar =Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<interactive input>", line 1, in ?
File "<interactive input>", line 6, in foo
File "<interactive input>", line 3, in nestedfunc
UnboundLocalError: local variable 'localvar' referenced before
assignment
This is entirely counter-intuitive to me, and searching the manual for
nested scoping rules and for augmented assignment rules, I still feel
that I couldn't have predicted this from the docs.

Is this an implementation artifact, bug, or should it really just
follow logically from the language definition?

Regards,

--Tim

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Hi,

The following might be documented somewhere, but it hit me unexpectedly
and I couldn't exactly find this in the manual either.

Problem is, that I cannot use augmented assignment operators in a
nested scope, on variables from the outer scope:

Is this an implementation artifact, bug, or should it really just
follow logically from the language definition?

From the docs:

"""
An augmented assignment expression like x += 1 can be rewritten as x = x + 1
to achieve a similar, but not exactly equal effect. In the augmented
version, x is only evaluated once. Also, when possible, the actual
operation is performed in-place, meaning that rather than creating a new
object and assigning that to the target, the old object is modified
instead.
"""

The first part is the important one. If you expand

x += 1

to

x = x + 1

it becomes clear under the python scoping rules that x is being treated as a
local to the inner scope.

There has been a discussion about this recently on python-dev[1] and this
NG - google for it.



Regards,

Diez


[1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-June/065902.html

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Hi,

The following might be documented somewhere, but it hit me unexpectedly
and I couldn't exactly find this in the manual either.

Problem is, that I cannot use augmented assignment operators in a
nested scope, on variables from the outer scope:

Is this an implementation artifact, bug, or should it really just
follow logically from the language definition?

From the docs:

"""
An augmented assignment expression like x += 1 can be rewritten as x = x + 1
to achieve a similar, but not exactly equal effect. In the augmented
version, x is only evaluated once. Also, when possible, the actual
operation is performed in-place, meaning that rather than creating a new
object and assigning that to the target, the old object is modified
instead.
"""

The first part is the important one. If you expand

x += 1

to

x = x + 1

it becomes clear under the python scoping rules that x is being treated as a
local to the inner scope.

There has been a discussion about this recently on python-dev[1] and this
NG - google for it.

Well no matter what explanation you give to it, and I understand how it
works, I keep finding it strange that something like

k = [0]
def f(i):
k[0] += i
f(2)

works but the following doesn't

k = 0
def f(i):
k += i
f(2)


Personnaly I see no reason why finding a name/identifier on the
leftside of an assignment should depend on whether the name
is the target or prefix for the target.


But maybe that is just me.

 

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Antoon Pardon wrote:
(snip)

Well no matter what explanation you give to it, and I understand how it
works,

I'm not sure of this.

I keep finding it strange that something like

k = [0]
def f(i):
k[0] += i
f(2)

works but the following doesn't

k = 0
def f(i):
k += i
f(2)


Personnaly I see no reason why finding a name/identifier on the
leftside of an assignment should depend on whether the name
is the target or prefix for the target.

It's not about "finding a name/identifier", it's about the difference
between (re)binding a name and mutating an object.

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

It's not about "finding a name/identifier", it's about the difference
between (re)binding a name and mutating an object.

the difference between binding and performing an operation on an object
(mutating or not), in fact.

this is Python 101.

</F>

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Antoon Pardon wrote:
(snip)

I'm not sure of this.

Should I care about that?

I keep finding it strange that something like

k = [0]
def f(i):
k[0] += i
f(2)

works but the following doesn't

k = 0
def f(i):
k += i
f(2)


Personnaly I see no reason why finding a name/identifier on the
leftside of an assignment should depend on whether the name
is the target or prefix for the target.

It's not about "finding a name/identifier", it's about the difference
between (re)binding a name and mutating an object.

The two don't contradict each other. Python has chosen that it won't
rebind variables that are out of the local scope. So if the lefthand
side of an assignment is a simple name it will only search in the
local scope for that name. But if the lefthand side is more complicated
if will also search the outerscopes for the name.

Python could have chosen an approach with a "nested" keyword, to allow
rebinding a name in an intermediate scope. It is not that big a deal
that it hasn't, but I keep finding the result strange and somewhat
counterintuitive.

Let me explain why:

Suppose someone is rather new of python and writes the following
code, manipulating vectors:

A = 10 * [0]
def f(B):
...
for i in xrange(10):
A += B
...

Then he hears about the vector and matrix modules that are around.
So he rewrites his code naively as follows:

A = NullVector(10):
def f(B):
...
A += B
...

And it won't work. IMO the principle of least surprise here would
be that it should work.

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

Python could have chosen an approach with a "nested" keyword

sure, and Python could also have been invented by aliens, powered by
space potatoes, and been illegal to inhale in Belgium.

have any of your "my mental model of how Python works is more important
than how it actually works" ever had a point ?

</F>

 

[Piet van Oostrum]

AP> Should I care about that?

Yes, because as long as you don't understand it, you are in for unpleasant
surprises.

AP> The two don't contradict each other. Python has chosen that it won't
AP> rebind variables that are out of the local scope. So if the lefthand
AP> side of an assignment is a simple name it will only search in the
AP> local scope for that name. But if the lefthand side is more complicated
AP> if will also search the outerscopes for the name.

No. It will always use the same search order. But a variable that is bound
inside the function (with an asignment) and is not declared global, is in
the local namespace. A variable that is not assigned to inside the function
is not in the local namespace. An assignment to A is not rebinding A, so
it doesn't count to make the variable A local.

AP> Python could have chosen an approach with a "nested" keyword, to allow
AP> rebinding a name in an intermediate scope. It is not that big a deal
AP> that it hasn't, but I keep finding the result strange and somewhat
AP> counterintuitive.

Maybe it would have been nice if variables could have been declared as
nested, but I think it shows that nested variables have to be used with
care, similar to globals. Especially not allowing rebinding in intermediate
scopes is a sound principle (`Nested variables considered harmful').
If you need to modify the objects which are bound to names in intermediate
scopes, use methods and give these objects as parameters.

AP> Let me explain why:

AP> Suppose someone is rather new of python and writes the following
AP> code, manipulating vectors:

AP> A = 10 * [0]
AP> def f(B):
AP> ...
AP> for i in xrange(10):
AP> A += B
AP> ...

AP> Then he hears about the vector and matrix modules that are around.
AP> So he rewrites his code naively as follows:

AP> A = NullVector(10):
AP> def f(B):
AP> ...
AP> A += B
AP> ...

AP> And it won't work. IMO the principle of least surprise here would
AP> be that it should work.

Well, A = f(B) introduces a local variable A. Therefore also A = A+B.
And therefore also A += B.

The only way to have no surprises at all would be if local variables would
have to be declared explicitly, like 'local A'. But that would break
existing code. Or maybe the composite assignment operators should have been
exempted. Too late now!

You have the same problem with:

A = [10]
def inner():
A.append(2)

works but

A = [10]
def inner():
A += [2]

doesn't. The nasty thing in this example is that although A += [2] looks
like a rebinding syntactically, semantically there is no rebinding done.

I think the cleaner solution is (use parameters and don't rebind):
def inner(A):
A.append(2)

 

[Antoon Pardon]

sure, and Python could also have been invented by aliens, powered by
space potatoes, and been illegal to inhale in Belgium.

At one time one could have reacted the same when people suggested
python could use a ternary operator. In the mean time a ternary
operator is in the pipeline. If you don't want to discuss how
python could be different with me, that is fine, but I do no
harm discussing such things with others.

have any of your "my mental model of how Python works is more important
than how it actually works" ever had a point ?

Be free to correct me. But just suggesting that I'm wrong doesn't help
me in changing my mental model.

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Yes, because as long as you don't understand it, you are in for unpleasant
surprises.

Well if someone explains what is wrong about my understanding, I
certainly care about that (although I confess to sometimes being
impatient) but someone just stating he is not sure I understand?

No. It will always use the same search order.

So if I understand you correctly in code like:

c.d = a
b = a

All three names are searched for in all scopes between the local en global
one. That is what I understand with your statement that [python] always
uses the same search order.

My impression was that python will search for c and a in the total current
namespace but will not for b.

But a variable that is bound
inside the function (with an asignment) and is not declared global, is in
the local namespace.

Aren't we now talking about implementation details? Sure the compilor
can set things up so that local names are bound to the local scope and
so the same code can be used. But it seems somewhere was made the
decision that b was in the local scope without looking for that b in
the scopes higher up.

Let me explain a bit more. Suppose I'm writing a python interpreter
in python. One implemantation detail is that I have a list of active
scopes which are directories which map names to objects. At the
start of a new function the scope list is adapted and all local
variables are inserted to the new activated scope and mapped to
some "Illegal Value" object. Now I also have a SearchName function
that will start at the begin of a scope list and return the
first scope in which that name exists. The [0] element is the
local scope. Now we come to the line "b = a"

This could be then executed internally as follows:

LeftScope = SearchName("b", ScopeList)
RightScope = SearchName("a", ScopeList)
LeftScope["b"] = RightScope["a"]

But I don't have to do it this way. I already know in which scope
"b" is, the local one, which has index 0. So I could just as well
have that line exucuted as follows:

LeftScope = ScopeList[0]
RightScope = SearchName("a", ScopeList)
LeftScope["b"] = RightScope["a"]

As far as I understand both "implementations" would make for
a correct execution of the line "b = a" and because of the
second possibility, b is IMO not conceptually searched for in
the same way as a is searched for, although one could organise
things that the same code is used for both.

Of course it is possible I completely misunderstood how python
is supposed to work and the above is nonesense in which case
I would appreciate it if you correct me.

Maybe it would have been nice if variables could have been declared as
nested, but I think it shows that nested variables have to be used with
care, similar to globals. Especially not allowing rebinding in intermediate
scopes is a sound principle (`Nested variables considered harmful').
If you need to modify the objects which are bound to names in intermediate
scopes, use methods and give these objects as parameters.

But shouldn't we just do programming in general with care? And if
Nested variables are harmfull, what is then the big difference
between rebinding them and mutating them that we should forbid
the first and allow the second?

I understand that python evolved and that this sometimes results
in things that in hindsight could have been done better. But
I sometimes have the impression that the defenders try to defend
those results as a design decision. With your remark above I have
to wonder if someone really thought this through at design time
and came to the conclusion that nested variables are harmfull
and thus may not be rebound but not that harmfull so mutation
is allowed and if so how he came to that conclusion.

AP> Let me explain why:

AP> Suppose someone is rather new of python and writes the following
AP> code, manipulating vectors:

AP> A = 10 * [0]
AP> def f(B):
AP> ...
AP> for i in xrange(10):
AP> A += B
AP> ...

AP> Then he hears about the vector and matrix modules that are around.
AP> So he rewrites his code naively as follows:

AP> A = NullVector(10):
AP> def f(B):
AP> ...
AP> A += B
AP> ...

AP> And it won't work. IMO the principle of least surprise here would
AP> be that it should work.

Well, A = f(B) introduces a local variable A. Therefore also A = A+B.
And therefore also A += B.

The only way to have no surprises at all would be if local variables would
have to be declared explicitly, like 'local A'. But that would break
existing code. Or maybe the composite assignment operators should have been
exempted. Too late now!

Let me make one thing clear. I'm not trying to get the python people to
change anything. Most I hope for is that they would think about this
behaviour for python 3000.

You have the same problem with:

A = [10]
def inner():
A.append(2)

works but

A = [10]
def inner():
A += [2]

doesn't. The nasty thing in this example is that although A += [2] looks
like a rebinding syntactically, semantically there is no rebinding done.

I think the cleaner solution is (use parameters and don't rebind):
def inner(A):
A.append(2)

For what it is worth. My proposal would be to introduce a rebinding
operator, ( just for the sake of this exchange written as := ).

A line like "b := a", wouldn't make b a local variable but would
search for the name b in all active scopes and then rebind b
there. In terms of my hypothetical interpreter something like
the above.

LeftScope = SearchName("b", ScopeList)
RightScope = SearchName("a", ScopeList)
LeftScope["b"] = RightScope["a"]

With the understanding that b wouldn't be inserted in the local
scope unless there was an assignment to be somewhere else in
the function.

The augmented assignments could then be redefined in terms of the
rebinding operator instead of the assignment.

I'm not sure this proposal would eliminate all surprises but as
far as I can see it wouldn't break existing code. But I don't think
this proposal would have a serious chance.

In any case thanks for your contribution.

 

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Well if someone explains what is wrong about my understanding, I
certainly care about that (although I confess to sometimes being
impatient) but someone just stating he is not sure I understand?

From what you wrote, I cannot decide if you really understand Python's
lookup rules and poorly express some disagreement on it, or if you just
don't understand Python lookup rules at all.

Now it's pretty clear you *don't* understand.

In the second case, ie:

k = [0]
def f(i):
k[0] += i

'k[0]' is *not* a name. The name is 'k'. If we rewrite this snippet
without all the syntactic sugar, we get something like:

k = [0]
def f(i):
k.__setitem_(0, k.__getitem__(0) + i)

Now where do you see any rebinding here ?

So if I understand you correctly in code like:

c.d = a
b = a

All three names

which ones ?

are searched for in all scopes between the local en global
one.

In this example, we're at the top level, so the local scope is the
global scope. I assert what you meant was:

c = something
a = something_else

def somefunc():
c.d = a
b = a

(NB : following observations will refer to this code)

That is what I understand with your statement that [python] always
uses the same search order.
yes.


My impression was that python will search for c and a in the total current
namespace

what is "the total current namespace" ?

but will not for b.

b is bound in the local namespace, so there's no need to look for it in
enclosing namespaces.

Aren't we now talking about implementation details?

Certainly not. Namespaces and names lookup rules are fundamental parts
of the Python language.

Sure the compilor
can set things up so that local names are bound to the local scope and
so the same code can be used. But it seems somewhere was made the
decision that b was in the local scope without looking for that b in
the scopes higher up.

binding creates a name in the current namespace. b is bound in the local
namespace, so b is local. period.

(snip)

 

[Piet van Oostrum]

AP> Well if someone explains what is wrong about my understanding, I
AP> certainly care about that (although I confess to sometimes being
AP> impatient) but someone just stating he is not sure I understand?

That is just a euphemistic way of stating `I think you do not understand
it'.

AP> So if I understand you correctly in code like:

AP> c.d = a
AP> b = a

AP> All three names are searched for in all scopes between the local en global
AP> one. That is what I understand with your statement that [python] always
AP> uses the same search order.

The d is different because it is an attribute. So it is looked up in the
context of the object that is bound to c. For a, b, and c it is correct.

AP> My impression was that python will search for c and a in the total current
AP> namespace but will not for b.

The assignment to b inside the function (supposing the code above is part
of the function body) tells the compiler that b is a local variable. So the
search stops in the local scope. The search order is always from local to
global. First the current function, then nested function, then the module
namespace, and finally the builtins. The first match will stop the search.
Now for local variables inside a function, including the parameters, the
compiler will usually optimize the search because it knows already that it
is a local variable. But that is an implementation detail.

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.

AP> Let me explain a bit more. Suppose I'm writing a python interpreter
AP> in python. One implemantation detail is that I have a list of active
AP> scopes which are directories which map names to objects. At the
AP> start of a new function the scope list is adapted and all local
AP> variables are inserted to the new activated scope and mapped to
AP> some "Illegal Value" object. Now I also have a SearchName function
AP> that will start at the begin of a scope list and return the
AP> first scope in which that name exists. The [0] element is the
AP> local scope. Now we come to the line "b = a"

AP> This could be then executed internally as follows:

AP> LeftScope = SearchName("b", ScopeList)
AP> RightScope = SearchName("a", ScopeList)
AP> LeftScope["b"] = RightScope["a"]

AP> But I don't have to do it this way. I already know in which scope
AP> "b" is, the local one, which has index 0. So I could just as well
AP> have that line exucuted as follows:

AP> LeftScope = ScopeList[0]
AP> RightScope = SearchName("a", ScopeList)
AP> LeftScope["b"] = RightScope["a"]

AP> As far as I understand both "implementations" would make for
AP> a correct execution of the line "b = a" and because of the
AP> second possibility, b is IMO not conceptually searched for in
AP> the same way as a is searched for, although one could organise
AP> things that the same code is used for both.

That is the optimization I spoke of above. But it is not the problem we
were discussing. Conceptually it is the same. It is similar to constant
folding (replacing x = 2+3 by x = 5).

AP> Of course it is possible I completely misunderstood how python
AP> is supposed to work and the above is nonesense in which case
AP> I would appreciate it if you correct me.

AP> Python could have chosen an approach with a "nested" keyword, to allow
AP> rebinding a name in an intermediate scope. It is not that big a deal
AP> that it hasn't, but I keep finding the result strange and somewhat
AP> counterintuitive.

AP> But shouldn't we just do programming in general with care? And if
AP> Nested variables are harmfull, what is then the big difference
AP> between rebinding them and mutating them that we should forbid
AP> the first and allow the second?

There is no big difference I think. Only Python doesn't have syntax for the
former. Older versions of Python didn't even have nested scopes. maybe it
was a mistake to add them. I think an important reason was the use in
lambda expressions, which Guido also regrets IIRC.

AP> I understand that python evolved and that this sometimes results
AP> in things that in hindsight could have been done better. But
AP> I sometimes have the impression that the defenders try to defend
AP> those results as a design decision. With your remark above I have
AP> to wonder if someone really thought this through at design time
AP> and came to the conclusion that nested variables are harmfull
AP> and thus may not be rebound but not that harmfull so mutation
AP> is allowed and if so how he came to that conclusion.

I don't think that was the reasoning. On the other hand I think nested
scopes were mainly added for read-only access (to the namespace that is,
not to the values) . But then Python doesn't forbid you to change mutable
objects once you have access to them.

 

[Antoon Pardon]

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. Maybe I'm not very good
at explaining what I mean, but you really haven't told me anything
here I didn't already know.

AP> [ ... ]
AP> Now we come to the line "b = a"

AP> This could be then executed internally as follows:

AP> LeftScope = SearchName("b", ScopeList)
AP> RightScope = SearchName("a", ScopeList)
AP> LeftScope["b"] = RightScope["a"]

AP> But I don't have to do it this way. I already know in which scope
AP> "b" is, the local one, which has index 0. So I could just as well
AP> have that line exucuted as follows:

AP> LeftScope = ScopeList[0]
AP> RightScope = SearchName("a", ScopeList)
AP> LeftScope["b"] = RightScope["a"]

AP> As far as I understand both "implementations" would make for
AP> a correct execution of the line "b = a" and because of the
AP> second possibility, b is IMO not conceptually searched for in
AP> the same way as a is searched for, although one could organise
AP> things that the same code is used for both.

That is the optimization I spoke of above. But it is not the problem we
were discussing.

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. Sure people may prefer to speak about (re)binding
vs mutating variables, but just because I didn't use the prefered terms,
starting to doubt my understanding of the language, seems a bit
premature IMO. 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.

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Now it's pretty clear you *don't* understand.

In the second case, ie:

k = [0]
def f(i):
k[0] += i

'k[0]' is *not* a name. The name is 'k'. If we rewrite this snippet
without all the syntactic sugar, we get something like:

k = [0]
def f(i):
k.__setitem_(0, k.__getitem__(0) + i)

Now where do you see any rebinding here ?

What point do you want to make? As far as I can see, I
didn't write anything that implied I expected k to
be rebound in code like

k[0] += i

So why are you trying so hard to show me this?

which ones ?


In this example, we're at the top level, so the local scope is the
global scope. I assert what you meant was:

I'm sorry I should have been more clear. I meant it to be
a piece of function code.

c = something
a = something_else

def somefunc():
c.d = a
b = a

(NB : following observations will refer to this code)

That is what I understand with your statement that [python] always
uses the same search order.
yes.

My impression was that python will search for c and a in the total current
namespace

what is "the total current namespace" ?

but will not for b.

b is bound in the local namespace, so there's no need to look for it in
enclosing namespaces.

Now could you clarify please. First you agree with the statement that python
always uses the same search order, then you state here there is no need
to look for b because it is bound to local namespace. That seems to
imply that the search order for b is different.

AFAIR my original statement was that the search for b was different than
the search for a; meaning that the search for b was limited to the local
scope and this could be determined from just viewing a line like "b = a"
within a function. The search for a (or c in a line like: "c.d = a")
is not limited to the local scope.

I may see some interpretation where you may say that the search order
for b is the same as for a and c but I still am not comfortable with
it.

Certainly not. Namespaces and names lookup rules are fundamental parts
of the Python language.

I don't see the contradiction. That Namespaces and names lookup are
fundamentel parts of the Python language, doesn't mean that
the right behaviour can't be implemented in multiple ways and
doesn't contradict that a specific explanation depend on a specific
implementation instead of just on language definition.

binding creates a name in the current namespace. b is bound in the local
namespace, so b is local. period.

I wrote nothing that contradicts that.

 

[Terry Reedy]

And if Nested variables are harmfull,

I don't know if anyone said that they were, but Guido obviously does not
think so, or he would not have added them. So skip that.

what is then the big difference between rebinding them and mutating them

A variable is a name. Name can be rebound (or maybe not) but they cannot
be mutated. Only objects (with mutation methods) can be mutated. In other
words, binding is a namespace action and mutation is an objectspace action.
In Python, at least, the difference is fundamental.

Or, in other other words, do not be fooled by the convenient but incorrect
abbreviated phrase 'mutate a nested variable'.

that we should forbid the first and allow the second?

Rebinding nested names is not forbidden; it has just not yet been added
(see below).

Being able to mutate a mutable object is automatic once you have a
reference to it. In other words, it you can read the value, you can mutate
it (if it is mutable).

I understand that python evolved and that this sometimes results
in things that in hindsight could have been done better.

So does Guido. That is one explicit reason he gave for not choosing any of
the nunerous proposals for the syntax and semantics of nested scope write
access. In the face of anti-consensus among the developers and no
particular personal preference, he decided, "Better to wait than roll the
dice and make the wrong, hard to reverse, choice now". (Paraphrased quote)

I have to wonder if someone really thought this through at design time

Giving the actual history of, if anything, too many people thinking too
many different thoughts, this is almost funny.

Recently however, Guido has rejected most proposals to focus attention on
just a few variations and possibly gain a consensus. So I think there is
at least half a chance that some sort of nested scope write access will
appear in 2.6 or 3.0.

Terry Jan Reedy

 

[Piet van Oostrum]

AP> Could you maybe clarify what problem we are discussing? All I wrote
AP> was that with an assignment the search for the lefthand variable
AP> depends on whether the lefthand side is a simple variable or
AP> more complicated.

What do you mean with `the lefthand variable'? Especially when talking
about `complicated lefthand sides'?

AP> Sure people may prefer to speak about (re)binding
AP> vs mutating variables, but just because I didn't use the prefered terms,
AP> starting to doubt my understanding of the language, seems a bit
AP> premature IMO. I'm sure there are areas where my understanding of
AP> the language is shaky, metaclasses being one of them, but understanding
AP> how names are searched doesn't seem to be one of them.

You didn't understand it in your OP. Maybe your understanding has gained in
the meantime?

 

[Piet van Oostrum]

TR> I don't know if anyone said that they were, but Guido obviously does not
TR> think so, or he would not have added them. So skip that.

I used that phrase (with correct spelling). I had supposed that it would
be recognised as a variation of 'Global variables considered harmful',
(William Wulf and Mary Shaw, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 1973, 8 (2) pp. 28--34).
I think nested variables have the same troubles as global variables, so
they should be used with care.

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

Be free to correct me. But just suggesting that I'm wrong doesn't help
me in changing my mental model.

over the years, enough people have wasted enough time on trying to get
you to understand how Python works, in various aspects. if you really
were interested in learning, you would have learned something by now,
and you wouldn't keep repeating the same old misunderstandings over and
over again.

</F>

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

I don't see the contradiction. That Namespaces and names lookup are
fundamentel parts of the Python language, doesn't mean that
the right behaviour can't be implemented in multiple ways and
doesn't contradict that a specific explanation depend on a specific
implementation instead of just on language definition.

the behaviour *is* defined in the language definition, and has nothing
to do with a specific implementation. have you even read the language
reference ? do you even know that it exists ?

</F>

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

There is no big difference I think. Only Python doesn't have syntax for the
former. Older versions of Python didn't even have nested scopes.

arbitrarily nested scopes, at least. the old local/global/builtin
approach (the LGB rule) is of course a kind of nesting; the new thing is
support for "enclosing scopes" in Python 2.1/2.2 (the LEGB rule). for
some background, see:

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0227/

the section "Rebinding names in enclosing scopes" discusses the 2.X-
specific thinking; this may be revised in 3.0 (see current python-dev
discussions).

</F>