Steve Holden wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.lang.python:
> 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. What problems would it have that a recursive global function that modified a global object, or a recursive method that modified its instance doesn't have ? Rob. -- http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
