On 10/10/2010 12:53 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message<4cb14f8c$0$1627$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, John Nagle wrote:
Within "fn1", the first reference to "self.classvar" references the class-
level version of "classvar". The assignment overrides that and creates an
object-level instance of "self.classvar". Further references to
self.classvar" in f1 then reference the object-level "classvar"
I’d say there is definitely an inconsistency with the absoutely anal
restrictions on global variables, i.e. the well-known sequence
... reference to globalvar ...
globalvar = newvalue
which triggers the error “UnboundLocalError: local variable 'globalvar'
referenced before assignment”.
It seems to me the same principle, that of disallowing implicit overriding
of a name from an outer scope with that from an inner one after the former
has already been referenced, should be applied here as well.
Right. That's what I'm getting at.
I understand how the current semantics fall out of the obvious
implementation. But I don't see those semantics as particularly
desirable. The obvious semantics for globals are similar, but
that case is so error-prone that it was made an error.
(If you want default values for an instance, you define them
in __init__, not as class-level attributes.)
John Nagle
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
