Steven Bethard wrote: > Fuzzyman wrote: > > It wasn't that part of the example that I thought was over complex. > > (although it's not a 'pattern' I use often). You suggested that if we > > had dynamic evaluation of default values, you would have to replace it > > with : > > > >>>>>class foo(object): > >>>>> matcher=re.compile(r'...') > >>>>> def __new__(self, bar, baz, matcher=None): > >>>>> if matcher is None: > >>>>> matcher = self.matcher > >>>>> ... > >>>>> text = matcher.sub(r'...', text) > >>>>> ... > > > > > > Now that I thought was over complex... when all you wanted to do was > > put a constant into your default value ! > > Ahh. Yeah, the thing above is a bit complex, but it keeps the same > namespaces -- matcher is only available to foo, not the enclosing > class/module. Point taken of course. ;) > > Steve
I see. I may be wrong on this... *but* I thought the only time when a variable defined in the same scope as a function wouldn't be available in the same namespace is when the function is a global but the variable isn't ? In which case you deserve a NameError if you try and use the variable as a default value....... Are there any other circumstances when they wouldn't be in the same namespace ? Regards, Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
