Re^2: Closures and scope of lexicals

Tho python is still different IIRC.

There is no block scope, variables live in a function or a file.

In order to create a list of closure functions in a loop closing over different variables - like in the OP's first example - one would need to call an explicit generator function, having the var in its scope and returning the closure.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^2: Closures and scope of lexicals

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:25 UTC
But it's supposed to be file-scoped. `$i` is scoped to the file in the OP's code. Your suggested change would make the code different than the OP's code.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Closures and scope of lexicals by LanX (Saint) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:31 UTC
I was referring to his first example which prints 123 That's more complicated to achieve in Python IMHO. Edit I think JS had a similar effect with `var` , that's why `let` was introduced Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:35 UTC
I didn't translate the first snippet. The question is about the second snippet. The OP asked if its behaviour is a quirk. I showed that it's not by showing that the behaviour is consistent across many languages.	[reply]
Re^6: Closures and scope of lexicals by LanX (Saint) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:37 UTC
Re^7: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:39 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^5: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:38 UTC
Yes, JS's `var` is function-scoped at the narrowest. It's even retroactive such that `foo = 1; var foo;` [download] is equivalent to `var foo; foo = 1;` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Edit