Dave Angel <d...@davea.name> writes: > True, but in this code, the function is trying to both use the global > value, but also a local that deliberately has the same name, but a > different meaning and "value". The CPython compiler doesn't make this > easy, and I think the globals() technique is unnecessarily obscure, as > is the default-argument trick.
I disagree. The language makes it difficult, and it *should* be difficult to do what you describe. The tricks to achieve it are obscure and ugly, which is a good thing IMO: they're a code smell that the design of the code needs changing. Or, in brief: they're not unnecessarily obscure, they're as obscure as they need to be. > If a function knows of the presence of a global, it's not asking too > much for it to not re-use the same name in local scope. Yes. -- \ “Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of | `\ ugliness that can only be the result of a special effort.” | _o__) —Douglas Adams, _The Long Dark Tea-Time Of The Soul_ | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
