Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
> > I don't know why people strive to get local variables set dynamically.
> > If you want to use them, you'll have to make them explicitely anyway.
> > So what do we gain?  Is there a real world problem that can't be solved
> > without this?
>
> Of course not.  But some code is a lot cleaner if you can use the local
> symbol table as a hash.  This is a common technique in Perl, and it
> seems to be in Python (via [gs]etattr and globals()) as well.

I think on this specific point you're wrong about python.  Writing to
globals dict will change the global namespace, writing to locals dict
won't have any effect (it's often described as read-only, but that's
not quite correct)

Maybe we're arguing about passing keywords args to a method, in which
case you can look at Gavin Sinclair's solution in the draft Ruby
cookbook.