From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA21274; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:48:12 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA20830 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:48:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail3.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.59]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hAJFm9121562 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:48:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from 203-213-84-84-syd-ts16-2600.tpgi.com.au (203-213-84-84-syd-ts16-2600.tpgi.com.au [203.213.84.84]) by mail3.tpgi.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAJFm1r22621; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:48:03 +1100 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GC and file descriptors From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@ozemail.com.au To: Ville-Pertti Keinonen Cc: Caml Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20031119135520.GB886@exomi.com> References: <1069092899.17437.58.camel@pelican> <20031118120517.GA881@exomi.com> <1069168782.18363.90.camel@pelican> <20031118200209.GA549@exomi.com> <1069244753.23700.17.camel@pelican> <20031119135520.GB886@exomi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1069253252.23700.147.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 20 Nov 2003 01:47:32 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ozemail:01 1100,:01 python:01 lexically:01 python:01 ocaml:01 descriptors:01 rec:01 nov:01 constructs:02 nested:02 explicit:03 wrote:03 wrote:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 00:55, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:25:53PM +1100, skaller wrote: > > Functions can be nested in Python 2.2, and they're lexically > > scoped. You can even do this: > > I wouldn't call it conventional lexical scoping considering that the > following is an error: > > x = 1 > def f(): > x += 1 > return x > > I very much prefer having explicit let (and let rec) constructs like in > OCaml. > But the problem has nothing to do with lexical scoping. The problem here is that variables are not declared in Python. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners