* Raymond Hettinger:
On Dec 4, 2:03 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
Is this guaranteed to work in Python 3.x?
>>> def foo(): pass
...
>>> foo.blah = 222
>>> foo.blah
222
Yes, function attributes are guaranteed to be writable:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0232/
Thanks to all, especially you and Terry.
To quote a suspected bot once rampaging the Microsoft groups, "my question has
been answered!" :-)
Thread morphing:
Regarding my terminology, "routine" instead "function" that everybody except you
remarked on, it is of course intentional. After all, my main language is C++.
And nobody (well, very few) would accuse me of not knowing my C++. :-)
I use the term "routine" because I think the terminology influences what we can
easily think of and what we therefore tend to use and/or discuss. In that
respect I think people need to be educated to use more language independent, or
Eiffel-like, or just historically original, terminology, because
* "function" is misleading in itself (due to the hijacking of this term in
mathematics), and
* it gets worse when you can't reasonably talk about "co-functions" or
"function-like functions". :-)
The devolution of terminology has been so severe that now even the Wikipedia
article on this subject confounds the general concept of "routine" with the far
more specialized term "sub-routine", which is just one kind of routine. It is of
course OK with me that there is a default meaning, and that there are several
different context dependendent meanings. I'm just mentioning this as an example
that the terminology effectively constrains one's thinking, to the degree that
even a moderately long encyclopedia article on the subject fails to mention or
focus on the important aspects. Perhaps modern programmers should be forced to
study Donald Knuth's TAOCP. Or something.
Cheers,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
