On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:56 PM ast <ast@invalid> wrote: > > Le 27/04/2020 à 04:46, Bob van der Poel a écrit : > > Does this make as much sense as anything else? I need to track calls to a > > function to make sure it doesn't get called to too great a depth. I had a > > global which I inc/dec and then check in the function. Works fine, but I do > > need to keep a global around just for this. > > > > So ... instead I wrote a short function: > > > > def parseStack(inc, depth=[0]): > > if depth[0] > 50: > > ... report error and die nicely > > depth[0] += inc > > > > This gets rid of the global, and it moves my error check out of the main > > code as well. But, I never feel all that great about using a list in the > > function call for static storage. > > > > > Using a callable object is the best way to define a function > with a memory > > class ParseStack: > def __init__(self): > self.depth=0 > def __call__(self, inc, reset=True): > if reset: > self.depth = 0 > if self.depth > 50: > ... report error > self.depth += 1 > ... do your stuff > > parse_stack = ParseStack() > > and use "function" parse_stack > > parse_stack(43)
"Best"? Not sure about that. Functions are first-class objects in Python, so a function *is* a callable object. You don't have to create a custom class with a call method just to be able to attach attributes to your function. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
