> since when did Python grow full lexical scoping?
>
> does anyone that has learned about the LGB rule expect
> the above to work?
Not sure what LGB stands for. "Local / Global / Built-in"?
> in contrast, my example used a name which appears to be
> defined in the same scope as the other names introduced
> on the same line of source code -- but isn't.
>
> def foo(x):
> foo.x =3D x
>
> here, "foo" doesn't refer to the same namespace as the
> argument "x", but to instead whatever happens to be in
> an entirely different namespace at the time the function
> is executed.
>
> in other words, this feature cannot really be used to store
> statics -- it only looks that way...
Huh. ??
I'm assuming your hypothetical foo.x means the attribute 'x' of the
function 'foo' in the global namespace for the function 'foo' - which,
conveniently, is the module where foo is defined!
8<--- foo.py --->8
def foo():
# Return the object named 'foo'.
return foo
8<--- end foo.py --->8
8<--- bar.py --->8
from foo import *
print foo()
8<--- end bar.py --->8
% python bar.py
<function foo at 80eb4c0>
%
I must be misapprehending what you're suggesting - i know you know this
stuff better than i do - but it seems to me that foo.x would work, were
foo to have an x. (And that foo.x would, in my esteem, be a suboptimal
way to get at x from within foo, but that's besides the fact.)
Ken
klm@digicool.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4