> Why not just use a class? > > > def incgen(start=0, inc=1) : > class incrementer(object): > a = start - inc > def __call__(self): > self.a += inc > return self.a > return incrementer() > > a = incgen(7, 5) > for n in range(10): > print a(),
Because I think that this is a workaround for a concept that the language doesn't support elegantly with its lexically nested scopes. IMO, you are emulating name rebinding in a closure by creating an object to encapsulate the name you want to rebind--you don't need this workaround if you only need to access free variables in an enclosing scope. I provided a "lighter" example that didn't need a callable object but could use any mutable such as a list. This kind of workaround is needed as soon as you want to re-bind a parent scope's name, except in the case when the parent scope is the global scope (since there is the "global" keyword to handle this). It's this dichotomy that concerns me, since it seems to be against the elegance of Python--at least in my opinion. It seems artificially limiting that enclosing scope name rebinds are not provided for by the language especially since the behavior with the global scope is not so. In a nutshell I am proposing a solution to make nested lexical scopes to be orthogonal with the global scope and removing a "wart," as Jeremy put it, in the language. -Almann -- Almann T. Goo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
