On 21/06/2016 23:20, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 12:15:38 PM UTC-5, Random832 wrote:
Storing dynamic data to global space is almost always
foolish, and I'm a fan of name spaces. But i did not
recommend such foolish action, i was merely replying to the
assertion that "Python does have real globals". She does,
you just have look under the tail!
How would you use this idea to solve the OP's problem?
So, module M contains a top-variable G.
Module A imports M, and wants to access the identical variable G,
without having to write it as M.G.
Assignments (not just in-place mods) to G in M will be reflected in A's
G, and vice versa.
I tried using your method but it didn't work:
--------------------------------
M.py:
--------------------------------
G = 5
print ("M:G=",G)
def F():
global G
G = 44
print ("M.F:G=",G)
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
A.py (main module):
--------------------------------
import sys
sys.modules['__builtin__'].__dict__['G']=8888
import M
print ("G=",G)
M.F()
print ("G=",G)
--------------------------------
Output of running A.py:
('M:G=', 5)
('G=', 8888)
('M.F:G=', 44)
('G=', 8888)
Using A.G in A.py instead, I get the correct output (values of 5,5,44,44
for G).
> i was merely replying to the
> assertion that "Python does have real globals". She does,
> you just have look under the tail!
You shouldn't need to do that (what looks like abusing the built-in
namespace common to all modules). There is also the problem of
inadvertently injecting a 'global' name that will clash with the
internal module-scope names in some modules that are not intended to be
exported.
The 'from' mechanism deals with that, by creating an alias to the
/value/ of an exported name without affecting identical names in other
modules, but it has the problem of not being an alias for the name itself.
--
Bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
