On Sunday 27 January 2008 09:45, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I have a problem which I think could be solved by using a dict as a
> namespace, in a similar way that exec and eval do.
>
> When using the timeit module, it is very inconvenient to have to define
> functions as strings. A good altern
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:04:06 -0500, Ross Ridge wrote:
> I think this is the way to go as it follows the principle of "say what
> you mean." You can however simplify it, and repeat yourself less, by
> using the extended call syntax:
>
> expr = "myfunc(**test)"
> setup = """from __main
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:16:00 -0700, Steven Bethard wrote:
> Why not mess with the namespace inside the setup code? E.g.::
[snip]
Ah, thanks, good thinking. It's not perfect, but it should be close
enough for what I'm trying to do.
--
Steven
who still wishes you could explicitly pass a namespa
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I have a problem which I think could be solved by using a dict as a
> namespace, in a similar way that exec and eval do.
>
> When using the timeit module, it is very inconvenient to have to define
> functions as strings. A good alternative is to create the function as
>
Steven D'Aprano writes:
>(1) Import the test and grab the values needed from it:
>
>setup = """from __main__ import myfunc, test
>x, y = test['x'], test['y']"""
>
>
>I don't like this one. It doesn't seem very elegant to me, and it gets
>unwieldy as the complexity increases. Every item I need
On Jan 27, 8:45 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> I have a problem which I think could be solved by using a dict as a
> namespace, in a similar way that exec and eval do.
>
> When using the timeit module, it is very inconvenient to have to define
> functions as str
