Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> > >>>>> "FL" =3D=3D Fredrik Lundh <effbot@telia.com> writes:
> >=20
> > FL> fwiw, I'd love to see a good syntax for this. might even
> > FL> change my mind...
> >=20
> > def foo(x):
> > self.x =3D x
> >=20
> > ? <ducking> :)
>=20
> Hehe... actually, I'd take Skip's "_.x =3D x" over the above =
suggestion. The
> above syntax creates too much of an expectation to look for "self". =
There
> would, of course, be problems that self.x doesn't work in a method =
while
> _.x could.
how about the obvious one: adding the name of the
function to the local namespace?
def foo(x):
foo.x =3D x
(in theory, this might of course break some code. but
is that a real problem?)
after all, my concern is that the above appears to work,
but mostly by accident:
>>> def foo(x):
>>> foo.x =3D x
>>> foo(10)
>>> foo.x
10
>>> # cool. now let's try this on a method
>>> class Foo:
>>> def bar(self, x):
>>> bar.x =3D x
>>> foo =3D Foo()
>>> foo.bar(10)
Traceback (most recent call first):
NameError: bar
>>> # huh?
maybe making it work in both cases would help?
...
but on third thought, maybe it's sufficient to just keep the
"static variable" aspect out of the docs. I just browsed a
number of javascript manuals, and I couldn't find a trace of
this feature.
so how about this?
-0.90000000000000002 on documenting this as "this
can be used to store static data in a function"
+1 on the feature itself.
</F>
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