Re: Some python comments/questions

lance@markv.com
Wed, 13 Oct 93 16:29:37 PDT

> From charon.cwi.nl!cwi.nl!guido Wed Oct 13 13:38:25 1993
> Cc: python-list@cwi.nl
> From: Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl
> X-Organization: CWI (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica)
> X-Address: P.O. Box 4079, 1009 AB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> X-Phone: +31 20 5924127 (work), +31 20 6225521 (home), +31 20 5924199 (fax)
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 21:34:13 +0100
> Sender: Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl
>
> Lance Ellinghouse:
> > PLEASE DON'T!!!!! I have a bunch of code that relies on passing in
> > explicit local and global dictionaries!!
>
> and Jon Eisberg:
> > I am developing a data analysis application using python as the interface
> > and user programming language. Your proposed change in exec would seem to
> > break it.
>
> Sorry folks, that's not what I meant to say! Your functionality will
> of course still be supported. Here's my proposed syntax again:
>
> exec <expression> [in <expression> [, <expression>]]
>
> The optional "in ..." part would be used to pass the global/local
> dictionary as with the current exec() function (and using this
> feature would mean the compiler did not have to stop optimizing
> locals). My remark that the change would "break" existing code was
> meant to apply at the syntactic level -- you will have to change all
> your lines that currently read
>
> exec(a, b, c)
>
> into
>
> exec a in b, c
>
> (and I will even make a script that does this painlessly, just as for
> other incompatible syntax changes in the past).
>
> Sorry about the confusion,

That is a relief!

--


Lance Ellinghouse           lance@markv.com


1231 bit key fingerprint = 56 DA 31 0C 17 51 36 6A  4E D4 E0 11 D9 B8 06 0A
1024 bit key fingerprint = 66 2C 75 F2 E9 1C 32 84  3A E3 B0 5E 48 01 4C 37
You can receive my Public Key by `finger lance@markv.com`