Not really -- in practice that would imply that ``for`` needs to freeze the value of ``locals`` during every iteration, which doesn't make sense to me.

This is definitely a python gotcha. In fact, it's literally one of the canonical ones [1]. But it's purely the interaction between the way that names/variables work in python, and late-binding closures.

More explicitly: it's best to think of "variables" in python as "names", because in code, you refer to names, but the underlying variable might change. This is also why python is best described neither as call-by-reference nor call-by-value, but rather "call-by-assignment" or "call-by-object": you're passing a reference to a variable bound to a particular name. Unless you're writing C extensions, you never actually have a reference to the variable itself -- instead, to the name.

Meanwhile, closures in python are always late-binding: they are themselves "live", mutable objects, in the sense that they're just a reference to the namespace they're closing, and *not* a copy. So if you mutate that namespace between establishing the closure and making use of it, you'll see the mutated version.

[1] https://docs.python-guide.org/writing/gotchas/#late-binding-...