This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author martin.panter
Recipients amaury.forgeotdarc, bgailer, docs@python, eric.araujo, eric.snow, ethan.furman, flox, georg.brandl, martin.panter, ncoghlan, nedbat, r.david.murray, techtonik, terry.reedy
Date 2015-01-15.14:25:02
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1421331902.58.0.0662711313709.issue17546@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
What about instead of

'''
Whether changes to one are reflected in the other after the call returns is undefined; additionally, the dictionary may change unpredictably after the call, and how it does is implementation-specific.
'''

substitue this wording:

'''
Whether changes to one are reflected in the other after the call returns, and when such updates occur, is undefined and implementation-specific.
'''

The old wording seems under-specified. It would allow a function call, garbage collection, etc, to clobber the dictionary, say overwriting with another function’s locals(), before you get a chance to work with the dictionary.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-01-15 14:25:02martin.pantersetrecipients: + martin.panter, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, amaury.forgeotdarc, ncoghlan, techtonik, nedbat, bgailer, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, flox, docs@python, ethan.furman, eric.snow
2015-01-15 14:25:02martin.pantersetmessageid: <1421331902.58.0.0662711313709.issue17546@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-01-15 14:25:02martin.panterlinkissue17546 messages
2015-01-15 14:25:02martin.pantercreate