Scope of variables used in for loops is not respected when renaming symbols

Environment data

• VS Code version: 1.36
• Extension version (available under the Extensions sidebar): 2019.6.22090
• OS and version: Windows 10 home 1903
• Python version (& distribution if applicable, e.g. Anaconda): 3.7.3
• Type of virtual environment used (N/A | venv | virtualenv | conda | …): N/A
• Relevant/affected Python packages and their versions: N/A
• Jedi or Language Server? (i.e. what is "python.jediEnabled" set to; more info #3977): Jedi

Expected behaviour

When using the rename symbols function, if a variable that is an index variable for a for loop but is also used for a different for loop, then only the relavent for loop will be changed.

Actual behaviour

All instances of the variable are changed.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Select for loop variable
2. Right click and select Rename Symbol
3. Change the variable name

Logs

Output for Python in the Output panel (View→Output, change the drop-down the upper-right of the Output panel to Python)

##########Linting Output - mypy##########
##########Linting Output - pydocstyle##########
d:\Documents\test\test.py:1 at module level:
        D100: Missing docstring in public module
##########Linting Output - pep8##########
Starting Jedi Python language engine.
##########Linting Output - pylint##########
************* Module test
1,0,convention,missing-docstring:Missing module docstring

------------------------------------------------------------------

Your code has been rated at 6.67/10 (previous run: 6.67/10, +0.00)

[brettcannon]

Python’s scoping rules are:

1. local
2. closure/nonlocal
3. global
4. built-ins

So for loops don’t create a scope. This is why you can still read the loop variant after a for loop executes, so the variable should be considered the same for the entire local scope of the function.

[sudoandros]

@jakebailey @brettcannon Well, yeah, that’s right but I don’t think a lot of people use variables this way (IMHO it would not be an easy to read code). So it would be nevertheless a cool feature to have: “rename” bound by loop. These behaviour may be optional. But I see your point, then it becomes more a feature request than a bug. And it may be difficult to implement.