[Python-ideas] Why does += trigger UnboundLocalError?

[Carl M. Johnson]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:

> Sure, this can only work if the local is assigned somewhere before the
> augmented
> assign statement.  But this is just like accessing a local before its
> assignment: in the case of
>
> x = 1
> def f():
>    print x
>    x = 2
>
> we also don't treat the first "x" reference as a nonlocal.
>

I don't think that's a counterexample to the point I'm trying to make. We
all agree that if there's an x= somewhere in the function body, then we have
to treat the variable as a local. The only possible way around that would be
to solve the halting problem in order to figure out if a particular line of
code will be reached or not. Agreed, sure, we have to treat the LHS of = as
a local. But += is fundamentally different. You cannot have a += statement
unless somewhere out there there is a matching = statement. It cannot exist
independently. It never works on its own. So, if there is a += statement in
the function body and there isn't an = statement in the function body it
cannot work. Ever. All function bodies that have a += but no corresponding =
or nonlocal are, as of today, broken code. So, if we were to change Python
to make += not cause a variable to become a local, it wouldn't change how
any (working) Python code today functions (it might causes some tests to
change if they were counting on the error). This would be a completely
backwards compatible change.

Or am I missing something? Is there any scenario where you can get away with
using += without = or nonlocal? I guess you could do something with
locals().update or the stackframe, but my understanding is that those hacks
don't count for language purposes.

-- Carl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20110531/3e26b148/attachment.html>