For what it's worth, I normally just do: global a global b
But I've never needed more than two. I think if you need more, then there is a serious style issue. That it looks syntactically ugly is a feature. Perhaps we should deprecate the comma in global ;-) . Stephan Op 23 jan. 2017 8:38 p.m. schreef "João Matos" <[email protected]>: > Hello, > > You are correct, my mistake. I should have written global and not globals. > > The purpose of using parentheses on the import statement is not (in my > view) for operational efficiency but for appearance/cleaness. > The same applies to using it to global. > > One does not need to have 10 global vars. It may have to do with var name > length and the 79 max line length. > > This is an example from my one of my programs: > global existing_graph, expected_duration_in_sec, file_size, \ > file_mtime, no_change_counter > > Anyway, the use of global being rare is of no concern. The point of my > suggestion is standardization. > My opinion is that a standard language is easier to learn (and teach) than > one that has different syntax for the same issue, depending on the > statement. > > In short, if the recommended multi-line use for import is > > import (a, b, > c) > > instead of > > import a, b, \ > c > > Then the same should apply to global. > > > Best regards, > > JM > > > > > On 23-01-2017 19:25, Terry Reedy wrote: > >> On 1/23/2017 1:43 PM, João Matos wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I would like to suggest that globals should follow the existing rule >>> (followed by the import statement, the if statement and in other places) >>> for extending beyond 1 line using parentheses. >>> Like this: >>> globals (var_1, var_2, >>> var_3) >>> >>> instead of what must be done now, which is: >>> globals var_1, var_2 \ >>> var_3 >>> >> >> The declaration keyword is 'global'; 'globals' is the built-in function. >> In any case >> >> global var_1, var_2 >> global var_3 >> >> works fine. There is no connection between the names and, unlike with >> import, no operational efficiency is gained by mashing the statements >> together. >> >> This issue should be rare. The global statement is only needed when one >> is rebinding global names within a function*. If a function rebinds 10 >> different global names, the design should probably be re-examined. >> >> * 'global' at class scope seems useless. >> >> a = 0 >> class C: >> a = 1 >> >> has the same effect as >> a = 0 >> a = 1 >> class C: pass >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
