[Python-ideas] Tweaking closures and lexical scoping to include the function being defined

[Jim Jewett]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com> wrote:

> The alternative is to leave nonlocal as just a simple statement, but
> change its behavior when the name is not found inside a containing
> function scope.  Currently that is a syntax error.

Until this discussion started, I had not realized that nonlocal was
limited to names from containing *function* scopes; I had thought that
it would end up using the module-level globals if need be.

Having it indicate a scope *closer* than all the scopes where it
already looked but failed to find the name seems wrong.

That said, my intuition may be suspect; outside examples, I have never
used nonlocal, and work fairly hard to avoid global.  I don't *like*
boxing up my variables, but it still seems less offensive than a
global statement and the resulting side effects.

-jJ