"jmp" <jeanmic...@sequans.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:mailman.213.1475849391.30834.python-l...@python.org...
On 10/07/2016 03:45 PM, ast wrote:
"jmp" <jeanmic...@sequans.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:mailman.210.1475844513.30834.python-l...@python.org...
On 10/07/2016 02:07 PM, ast wrote:
"jmp" <jeanmic...@sequans.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:mailman.209.1475841371.30834.python-l...@python.org...
On 10/07/2016 01:38 PM, Daiyue Weng wrote:
So the rule of thumb for default argument value is "No mutable"
Cheers,
It can be used to store some variables from one call of
a function to an other one.
def test( _store={'x':0}):
x = _store['x']
..... do some stuff
_store['x'] = x
For personal dirty scripts, possibly, for all other situations, never.
not so dirty in my opinion
You made a point, it's not that dirty, it's an "advanced technique" that is often actually an
error when you don't know what you're doing. See the OP's code.
I'm in an environment where people use python as a tool more than an effective powerful language
to write complex applications. That's probably why I'm bias on this issue and prefer the cautious
approach.
Especially since there's nothing in the code above that cannot be
solved using standard idioms .
Yes, putting _store dictionnary outside
_store={'x':0}
def test( ):
x = _store['x']
..... do some stuff
_store['x'] = x
or using a global variable, but you pollute in both case
the global scope unnecessary.
What about
def test():
if not hasattr(test, '_store'): test._store={'x':0}
test._store['x'] += 1
Neither you pollute the global namespace, nor you pollute the function signature with
implementation specifics.
jm
OK
There is this solution too we often see:
def test(x):
.... x = some stuff
.... return(x)
x=0
x = test(x)
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
