Frederic Rentsch wrote: > Rob Williscroft wrote: > >>Frederic Rentsch wrote in news:mailman.1556.1162316571.11739.python- >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.lang.python: >> >> >> >>>Rob Williscroft wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Frederic Rentsch wrote in news:mailman.1536.1162292996.11739.python- >>>> >>>> >>>>>Rob Williscroft wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Frederic Rentsch wrote in news:mailman.1428.1162113628.11739.python- >>>>>> >> >>[snip] >> >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Here I'm lost. What's the advantage of this? It looks more convoluted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>I'll agree that having to explicitly define a namespace class first >>>>does add some convolution. >>>> >>>>But if you refer to having to prefix you "outer" variables with >>>>"scope." then this would be the same as claiming that the explict use >>>>of self is convoluted, which is a valid opinion, so fair enough, but >>>>I can't say that I agree. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>I didn't mean to call into question. I didn't understand the advantage >>>of the added complexity of your second example over the first. >>> >>> >> >>Ok, I missed your point, as for the second example it was an attempt >>to show that further refactoring from a function with local functions >>that are sharing some state via the scope object, to a class with >>methods that share state via the instance, is a matter of editing >>a few lines. >> >>This is useful when a function grows too large (for some value of >>"too large"). As an added bonus you get to use the same thechniques >>with both styles of coding. >> >>[snip] >> >>Rob. >> > > > Rob, > > Thanks a lot for your input. I'll have to digest that. Another question > I had and forgot was this: Since we have a class that goes out of scope > when the function returns, and we don't need more than one instance, why > bother to make an instance? Why not use the class object itself? > > def whatever( new_ms ): > > class scope ( object ): > > def inner(): > scope.mseconds = new_ms - s * 1000 > m, scope.seconds = divmod (s, 60) > h, scope.minutes = divmod (m, 60) > d, scope.hours = divmod (h, 24) > scope.weeks, scope.days = divmod (d, 7) > That will need to be
class scope(object): pass to avoid syntax errors, I suspect. There doesn't seem to be any reason why you couldn't use a class instead of an instance. And, of course, either might give you problems in the case of a recursive inner function. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
