On Feb 24, 8:48 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno. 42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid> wrote: > Luis M. Gonz lez a crit : > (snip) > > > Alright, this is what the docs say about locals: > > "Note > > The built-in functions globals() and locals() return the current > > global and local dictionary, respectively, which may be useful to pass > > around for use as the second and third argument to exec(). > > > Note > > The default locals act as described for function locals() below: > > modifications to the default locals dictionary should not be > > attempted. Pass an explicit locals dictionary if you need to see > > effects of the code on locals after function exec() returns." > > > I wonder why updating locals(), not from within a function, works (at > > least in my interactive session). > > Because at the top level, locals and globals are the same thing. > > > And what about the trick of updating globals? Is it legal? > > It's legal, but it's (usually) a very bad idea - at the top-level, it > harms readability, and from within a function it's doubly bad > (readibility + "globals are evil"). > > Now as usual with GoldenRules(tm), it's meant to be broken - once you do > know why you shouldn't _usually_ do it. > > for the very same reasons global > > > > > If not, is > > there any "legal" way to do what the OP needs? > > > Luis
I still don't understand why is it a bad idea in the case of globals(). This is the only way I know to define variables programatically in the top-level namespace, without having to do it manually one by one. I don't see the readability problem either. Talking about Goldenrules(tm), what's the recomended way to do it? Luis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
