On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 06:14:18PM -0700, David Mertz wrote: [...] > That said, there *is* one small corner where I believe f-strings add > something helpful to the language. There is no really concise way to spell: > > collections.ChainMap(locals(), globals(), __builtins__.__dict__).
I think that to match the normal name resolution rules, nonlocals() needs to slip in there between locals() and globals(). I realise that there actually isn't a nonlocals() function (perhaps there should be?). > If we could spell that as, say `lgb()`, that would let str.format() or > %-formatting pick up the full "what's in scope". To my mind, that's the > only good thing about the f-string idea. I like the concept, but not the name. Initialisms tend to be hard to remember and rarely self-explanatory. How about scope()? -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com