On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 02:44:33PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 03Oct2011 13:10, rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote: > | Also for scoping. > | > | py> count = 0 > | py> def foo(): > | ... global.count += 1 > | py> print count > | 1 > | > | Why? Well because many times i find myself wondering if this or that > | variable is local or global -- and when i say "global" i am speaking > | of module scope! The "global<DOT>" cures the ill. > > I must admit I rarely have this concern. My own module globals are > almost entirely CONSTANT type names. (Excluding function and class > names.) > > What's the common ambifuity case for you?
I never have this concern either. Python's functions and classes are powerful enough to avoid globals entirely. In C I have a few sometimes and in Fortran and the like they're everywhere. Global variables are POWERFUL and USEFUL but there's a certain paradigm that goes with them, and Python works better with an object-oriented w/ functional elements approach. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
