Robin Becker schrieb: > When young I was warned repeatedly by more knowledgeable folk that self > modifying code was dangerous. > > Is the following idiom dangerous or unpythonic? > > def func(a): > global func, data > data = somethingcomplexandcostly() > def func(a): > return simple(data,a) > return func(a)
It took me quite a while to figure out how it works, so, yes, I'd say it's unpythonic ;-). It's not really dangerous, but it can get nasty if someone tries to rename the function, or put it into a class. But that's probably not the kind of "self-modifying code" you've been warned against anyway: I've only ever seen self-modifying code in assembly language or in lisp, the idea is that you really change the code (i.e. single opcodes in the function that's currently running), so you can e.g. make an infinite loop, and eventually overwrite the loop statement to do something else so the loop ends. I'm not sure if you can do the same thing in Python, maybe by changing the bytecode of a running function. > It could be replaced by > > data = somethingcomplexandcostly() > def func(a): > return simple(data,a) > > but this always calculates data. You could of course initialize data with None and calculate it only on demand. Or you could use: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~micheles/python/documentation.html#memoize This has the advantage of encapsulating the memoization logic so it can be tested (and understood) separately from your code. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
