Brandt Bucher

Nope, great points have been made. I agree that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

> IIRC most require the use of some special syntax to force the alternate interpretation. Yeah, it does elegantly solve both problems. What about simply adding a token to the...

Using the casing of the names to distinguish these seems *very* un-Pythonic to me. Python's compiler does an excellent job of elegantly and intuitively sorting out local, nonlocal, and global...

> This behavior in turn comes from Python's general reluctance to introduce nested local scopes. I recently surprised someone by showing them how easy this was: ```py class _: for...

> Forcing the user to mark either loads or stores with extra syntax (either Easy 1 or Easy 2) because it would be too hard for the compiler to figure...

> But I still think looking at the case of the variable would cover 99% of the cases. Yeah, that's the one thing that redeems this for me. It also...

I just realized, while fiddling around with the implementation, that the desired check is trivially spelled with the current spec by mixing loads and stores: ```py >>> def check(stuff): ......

Also, off-topic... but while looking at the example above, I wonder if there is some way we could omit the `match stuff:` line and unindent. So `case` blocks starting at...

Hm, maybe. My initial reaction is that this feels like the job of static analysis. For something to be elevated to the level of "error", I think we need to...

Yep, all great points. Let's leave these be.