On 4/9/24 12:04 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > According to > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2829528/whats-the-scope-of-a-variable-initialized-in-an-if-statement > it is perfectly OK to initialize a variable 'solution' in various 'if' > branches. > > The warning apparently comes from the data flow analysis of your IDE, which > does not realize that the 'verifier' variable has only values 0, 1, 2 — > despite of the validation in the same function: > > if type(verifier) is not int: > raise TypeError('verifier must be an int, not %s' > % type(verifier).__name__) > if not (0 <= verifier <= 2): > raise ValueError('verifier must be 0, 1 or 2, not %d' % verifier)
Ah, okay thanks for the explanation. I think I understand what is going on now. So the unbound variable only exists if verifier is not 0, 1, or 2. In that case we would get a NameError since solution does not get defined. To combat this we have that input check at the start of the function. This was just a problem with my IDE and I failing to notice that check... > A better fix would be revisit this 'verifier'. Either an enum with 3 possible > values, or (better) a function GLModule -> bool. And call it 'moduleFilter' > rather than 'verifier'. > > When this is done, there will be no 'if' statement with missing 'else' case, > and I bet your IDE's warning will go away. Yes, I see what you mean. I very much prefer the 'moduleFilter' idea. It would allow us to remove a lot of the repetitive conditionals. Now I just have to figure out how to do that. If only Python had function pointers... Collin
