Dennis Lee Bieber Wrote in message:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:00:25 -0400, random...@fastmail.us declaimed the
> following:
>
>>
>>I can't imagine a language that would work that way. For one, it would
>>also imply that passing a value would change the default for future
>>calls even for non-mutab
In article ,
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:00:25 -0400, random...@fastmail.us declaimed the
> following:
>
> >
> >I can't imagine a language that would work that way. For one, it would
> >also imply that passing a value would change the default for future
> >calls even for n
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> But it's not hard to get that effect in Python, mutable or immutable
> doesn't matter:
>
>
> py> def spam(count, food="spam"):
> ... spam.__defaults__ = (food,)
> ... return food*count
> ...
> py> spam(5)
> 'spamspamspamspamspam'
> p
On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:00:25 -0400, random832 wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 20:38, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> I just wish I had a quid for every time somebody expects something out
>> of Python, that way I'd have retired years ago. At least here it's not
>> accompanied by "as that's how it works
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 20:38, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> I just wish I had a quid for every time somebody expects something out
> of Python, that way I'd have retired years ago. At least here it's not
> accompanied by "as that's how it works in ".
I can't imagine a language that would work that wa
On 03/04/2014 19:49, fbick...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
So I was reading about default values for functions and spied this:
[snip]
I was rather expecting it to start with 4!
I just wish I had a quid for every time somebody expects something out
of Python, that way I'd have retired years a
On 04/03/2014 11:49 AM, fbick...@gmail.com wrote:
I put this into pythontutor.com's code visualization tool
(http://goo.gl/XOmMjR) and it makes more sense what's going on.
I thought this was interesting; thought I would share.
That visualization tool is certainly neat, thanks!
--
~Ethan~
--
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, wrote:
> Now call it with a value:
> foo([ 3 ])
>
> as you might expect:
> It's a parrot, not a cheese: [3]
>
> But now go back to no parameter in the call:
> foo()
> foo()
> foo()
>
> It's a parrot, not a cheese: [46]
> It's a parrot, not a cheese: [47]
> It's a
