Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info>:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:43:44 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> At least some of the methods of inner classes are closures (or there
>> would be no point to an inner class).
>
> [...]
>
> (2) Whether or not the methods of an inner class are closures depends on
> the methods, not the fact that it is an inner class. There are no
> closures here:
>
> class Outer:
> class Inner:
> ...
>
> no matter what methods Inner has. Nor is this a closure:
>
> class Outer:
> def method(self):
> class Inner:
> def spam(self):
> return self.eggs
> return Inner
The most useful use of inner classes is something like this:
class Outer:
def method(self):
outer = self
class Inner:
def spam(self, a, b):
outer.quarantine(a, b)
return Inner()
> You made a vague comment about inner classes being equivalent to
> closures in some unknown fashion, but inner classes are not themselves
> closures, and the methods of inner classes are not necessarily
> closures.
I hope the above outline removes the vagueness.
>>>> populating an object with fields (methods) in a loop is very rarely
>>>> a good idea.
>>>
>>> Of course it is *rarely* a good idea
>>
>> So no dispute then.
>
> Isn't there? Then why are you disagreeing with me about the
> exceptional cases where it *is* a good idea?
I don't know which statement of mine you are referring to exactly now.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
