>> (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.)
Fredrik> fwiw, I'd love to see a good syntax for this. might even
Fredrik> change my mind...
Could we overload "_"'s meaning yet again (assuming it doesn't already have
a special meaning within functions)? That way
def bar():
print _.x
def foo():
print _.x
foo.x = "public"
bar.x = "private"
bar, foo = foo, bar
foo()
would display
private
on stdout. *Note* - I would not advocate this use be extended to do a more
general lookup of attributes - it should just refer to attributes of the
function of which the executing code object is an attribute. (It may not
even be possible.)
(I've never used _ for anything, so I don't know all its current (ab)uses.
This is just a thought that occurred to me...)
Skip
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