Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPTjJmr9K0eW6Giwifb1iBmavCoZEuY4mTQ7xBDWi1Ko=Qex1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51d4eb9c$0$29999$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CAPTjJmp2dpbRxbWct-oBuhM9b1WynjP-w0WVN=C1vEk0oJMBMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN1F8qU=SPw=1nR9G_LR0BKfpr8NSNcL1iepiHo0XzXoAMYA4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmr9K0eW6Giwifb1iBmavCoZEuY4mTQ7xBDWi1Ko=Qex1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 06:09:04 +0100
Subject: Re: Default scope of variables
To: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: python-list <python-list@python.org>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.4205.1372914587.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 44
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:49811

On 4 July 2013 05:36, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Joshua Landau
> <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That said, I'm not too convinced. Personally, the proper way to do
>> what you are talking about is creating a new closure. Like:
>>
>> for i in range(100):
>>     with new_scope():
>>         for i in range(100):
>>             func(i)
>>     func(i) # Using i from original loop
>>
>> But it's not like Python'll ever support that.
>>
>
> def foo():
>   for i in range(3):
>     print("outer",i)
>     def inner():
>       for i in range(4):
>         print("inner",i)
>     inner()
>     print("outer",i)
>
> That works, but you then have to declare all your nonlocals, and it
> hardly reads well.

Unfortunately that's what people, I included, end up doing. Stuff like:

def paranoia(...):
    def safe_recursive(...):
        safe_recursive(...)
    return safe_recursive
safe_recursive = paranoia()

is blimmin ugly. Then you're only really left with

class safe_recursive:
    def __call__(self, ...):
        self(...)

which only solves it for recursive functions.

I guess this means I actually agree with your sentiment, just not the specifics.