Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: exec inside functions in Python 3
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:31:45 +1100
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <mailman.12.1458653508.2244.python-list@python.org>
References: <56f14156$0$1619$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In-Reply-To: <56f14156$0$1619$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:105483

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Anyone have any idea what is going on here?
>
>
> def test():
>     spam = 1
>     exec("spam = 2; print('inside exec: %d' % spam)")
>     print('outside exec: %d' % spam)
>
>
> In Python 2.7:
>
> py> test()
> inside exec: 2
> outside exec: 2
>
>
>
> In Python 3.4:
>
> outside exec: 1
> py> test()
> inside exec: 2
> outside exec: 1
>
>
>
> What happened to spam?

In Python 2, exec is magical. In Python 3, it's a function like any
other, so it doesn't have access to local variables; what it gets is
locals(), which is a one-way representation of current locals -
changes don't propagate back.

It'd maybe be nice to be able to tell Python to compile a function
with a "real locals dictionary", which would then be mutated by
locals() changes (as locals() would simply return it as-is). That'd
fix this "problem", if problem it indeed is.

ChrisA