Yes, and I would say that requiring explicit local declarations is the right thing to do. Having a "default" variable scope is very error prone (typos are treated as new variables and closures don't work right) but at least with "global by default" you can use a linter to enforce that all your globals are explicitly declared. In Python its impossible to do something similar.
> Yes, and I would say that requiring explicit local declarations is the right thing to do.
And I could hardly agree more with that, I simply disagree that Python's closures remain broken, they're simply fixed within the constraints set by previous design decisions.
> at least with "global by default" you can use a linter to enforce that all your globals are explicitly declared
Still, there's really no excuse for global as default, there's no convenience justification and could just as easily be an error (more easily really)
> I simply disagree that Python's closures remain broken, they're simply fixed within the constraints set by previous design decisions.
The fact that I have to distinguish between `global`, `nonlocal` and `default` scope makes them broken. `nonlocal` is a hack.
Saying that it's a result of previous design decisions is a sound technical reason for why `nonlocal` is necessary to make closures work. But as an abstraction, at least, they are broken.
With that, I will concede that they are broken in two different ways between Python 2 and Python 3. This is IMO.
